R v Hasanovic - [2010] QCA 337

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hasanovic [2010] QCA 337

PARTIES:

R
v
HASANOVIC, Zinajdo
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 150 of 2010
DC No 1397 of 2009
DC No 1626 of 2009
DC No 1946 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 October 2010

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Refuse leave to appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the offender was convicted of a number of offences on three separate indictments – where the offender was sentenced to imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently – where global sentence imposed – where the longest term of imprisonment was nine years for the offence of doing grievous bodily harm with intent – where the learned primary judge proffered that the appropriate sentence for such an offence was eight years but sentenced the offender to nine years to reflect the overall criminality of all the offences – where a serious violent offender declaration was made – whether the parole eligibility date was delayed beyond that which would have been attained had the applicant been sentenced to cumulative sentences for each group of offences in the separate indictments – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B

Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372; [1989] HCA 39, cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183; [1999] QCA 206, cited
R v Eade [2005] QCA 148, cited
R v Mikaele [2008] QCA 261, cited
R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63; [2003] QCA 175, cited
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited

COUNSEL:

R East for the applicant
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

[1] MARGARET McMURDO P: This application for leave to appeal should be refused.

[2] The 19 year old applicant has received a heavy global sentence for his 20 indictable and 2 summary offences which spanned seven months between January and July 2008. His effective total sentence is one of nine years imprisonment with a declaration that his offence of doing grievous bodily harm with intent is a serious violent offence. The result is that he must serve seven years, two and a half months before becoming eligible to apply for parole. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence on the most serious of the offences, that of doing grievous bodily harm with intent, to reflect all the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Hasanovic

Details

AGLC: R v Hasanovic [2010] QCA 337
Case: [2010] QCA 337
Decision Date: 7 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hasanovic, the appellant was convicted on three separate indictments of various offences, including grievous bodily harm with intent. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently, with a global sentence imposed. The longest term of imprisonment was nine years for the offence of doing grievous bodily harm with intent. The primary judge indicated that the appropriate sentence for this offence was eight years but increased the sentence to nine years to reflect the overall criminality of all the offences. A serious violent offender declaration was also made. The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether the parole eligibility date was delayed beyond that which would have been attained had the appellant been sentenced to cumulative sentences for each group of offences in the separate indictments. The court considered the relevant principles of sentencing and the appellant's overall criminality. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the parole eligibility date was not delayed beyond that which would have been attained had the appellant been sentenced to cumulative sentences. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court's reasoning was that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the appellant's overall criminality. The court noted that the primary judge had considered the appropriate sentence for the grievous bodily harm with intent offence to be eight years but had increased the sentence to nine years to reflect the overall criminality of all the offences. The court found that this was an appropriate sentence and that the parole eligibility date was not delayed beyond that which would have been attained had the appellant been sentenced to cumulative sentences. The appeal against sentence was refused, and leave to appeal was denied.

Orders

Orders of the court

Refuse leave to appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Hasanovic [2010] QCA 337
PARTIES:	R v HASANOVIC, Zinajdo (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 150 of 2010 DC No 1397 of 2009 DC No 1626 of 2009 DC No 1946 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 December 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 October 2010
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and Jones J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Refuse leave to appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the offender was convicted of a number of offences on three separate indictments – where the offender was sentenced to imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently – where global sentence imposed – where the longest term of imprisonment was nine years for the offence of doing grievous bodily harm with intent – where the learned primary judge proffered that the appropriate sentence for such an offence was eight years but sentenced the offender to nine years to reflect the overall criminality of all the offences – where a serious violent offender declaration was made – whether the parole eligibility date was delayed beyond that which would have been attained had the applicant been sentenced to cumulative sentences for each group of offences in the separate indictments – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372; [1989] HCA 39, cited Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183; [1999] QCA 206, cited R v Eade [2005] QCA 148, cited R v Mikaele [2008] QCA 261, cited R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63; [2003] QCA 175, cited Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited
COUNSEL:	R East for the applicant B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent