R v Hatch - [1999] QCA 495

99.495

COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
PINCUS JA

HELMAN J

CA No 320 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

COLIN TREVOR HATCH

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 29/11/99
291199 T2/FLC4 M/T COA293/99
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant a 27-year-old man was
convicted after a five day trial of the offence of
unlawfully and indecently assaulting a woman in her house.
The applicant was then 25 years old with no prior criminal
history. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. He
seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence is
manifestly excessive.

The complainant then 23 years old had come home to her flat and gone to sleep in her bed. Another occupant of the flat later allowed the applicant in to sleep in another bedroom.

The complainant of course had no knowledge of that. The complainant woke up to find the applicant on top of her. She asked him to desist but the applicant in fact proceeded to put his fingers inside her vagina. This caused some pain. She kept asking him to stop. He went on however, as the sentencing Judge put it, forcibly to grope her breasts.

The complainant continued to ask him to stop. He again did not do so, this time moving his hand down in between her legs.

She then managed to push him off and ran out of the bedroom to seek help from her flatmate. She left in a taxi. The applicant had earlier left and in so doing made remarks to the complainant which the sentencing Judge noted showed absence of remorse and by contrast a degree of arrogance and a determination to dominate the complainant. Those words which the Judge considered very significant were:

"If I want to sleep with you I will sleep with you. If I

want to fuck with you I will deal with it."

291199 T2/FLC4 M/T COA293/99
He had earlier spoken derisorily of her saying:
"You are nothing but a child, you are stupid and you have no

life, you do nothing, don't be silly."

At the time the complainant's boyfriend was in London. The Judge described her position as vulnerable. The incident greatly upset her. Fearing further contact with the applicant, the complainant a few months later went to New Zealand. The applicant's remorseless attitude was further illustrated by his setting up an alibi rejected by the jury and particularly by his giving evidence at the trial in support of it which he conceded to be false leading to the Judges referring the papers to the Attorney-General.

The Judge also pointed out that in July 1997 the maximum penalty for the offence was increased from 14 years imprisonment to life imprisonment. Apart from his age at the time, 25 years, and lack of previous convictions, that he did not apply great force, a point taken in the applicant's outline, is of some significance in moderating the penalty. On the other hand he persisted for an appreciable period against clear objection and the digital penetration puts…

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 Hatch

Details

AGLC: R v Hatch [1999] QCA 495
Case: [1999] QCA 495
Decision Date: 29/11/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hatch involved a conviction for unlawfully and indecently assaulting a woman in her home. Colin Trevor Hatch, who was 25 years old at the time of the offence and had no prior criminal history, was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. He sought leave to appeal, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The complainant, a 23-year-old woman, had gone to sleep in her bed when the assault occurred. Hatch, who was allowed into the flat by another occupant, proceeded to assault her despite her protests. The sentencing judge noted the absence of remorse shown by Hatch, particularly through his remarks to the complainant, indicating a desire to dominate her. The seriousness of the offence was exacerbated by the lack of remorse, the intimidatory remarks, and the residual effect on the complainant.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed on Hatch was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal considered the seriousness of the offence, including the persistent nature of the assault and the lack of remorse shown by Hatch. They also considered the mitigating factors, such as Hatch's age at the time of the offence, lack of prior convictions, and the limited force used during the assault. The Court of Appeal noted that while the maximum penalty for the offence had been increased from 14 years imprisonment to life imprisonment, the sentence of 18 months imprisonment was supported by earlier cases, taking into account the serious features of the offence and the mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, and therefore refused Hatch's application for leave to appeal. The Court noted that there was no feature that could have justified a recommendation for earlier than usual parole. The judges unanimously agreed that the sentence was appropriate and did not warrant an appeal.

Orders