R v Hatfield - [2004] VSCA 195

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 285 of 2003

THE QUEEN
	v.
ANTHONY RYAN BERT HATFIELD

---

JUDGES:	CHERNOV and VINCENT, JJ.A. and GILLARD, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 October 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 October 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 195	First Revision: 3 November 2004

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Armed Robbery and Theft of firearms – Robbery committed against “soft target” – Six hour police siege after commission of robbery – Youthful offender – Aggravating circumstances subrogate offender’s youth to other sentencing principles – Cumulation – Offender’s mental situation does not warrant treating two offences separated in time as one transaction – Total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment with minimum term of two years and nine months not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mrs C.M. Quin	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr C.B. Boyce	Mike Wardell

CHERNOV, J.A.:

On 29 July 2003 the appellant, Anthony Ryan Bert Hatfield, now aged 20, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to a number of offences that he committed in the Mildura area. More particularly, he pleaded guilty to one count of burglary (count 1), three counts of theft, namely, of firearms and ammunition, a motor vehicle and a jacket (counts 2, 3 and 4 respectively). He also pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery of a convenience store (count 5) and one count of possessing a firearm whilst being a prohibited person (count 6). In addition, he pleaded guilty to driving whilst disqualified and having unauthorised possession of ammunition. The appellant admitted 24 prior convictions arising from three court appearances in the Children's Court in Mildura, the last of which was in December 2002. These offences included arson, theft and burglary, but no custodial sentence was imposed for those offences. After hearing on 29 August 2003 a plea for leniency on the appellant's behalf, during which a report from a forensic psychologist, Mr Ian Joblin, and a report from a psychiatrist, Dr Senadipathy, were received, the learned sentencing judge sentenced the appellant on 26 September 2003 to the following terms of imprisonment: count 1 - six months; count 2 - twelve months; count 3 - four months; count 4 - seven days; count 5 - four years; count 6 - three months. His Honour directed that the whole of the sentence imposed on count 2 be cumulated on that imposed on count 5, thus making a total effective sentence of five years' imprisonment. His Honour set a minimum term of 2 years 9 months' imprisonment before the appellant would become eligible for parole. His Honour also ordered that the appellant's driver's licence be cancelled and that he be disqualified from obtaining a licence for three years. In addition, the appellant was ordered to serve one month's imprisonment for the offence of driving whilst disqualified and to pay a $500 fine for the unauthorised possession of ammunition.

On…

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 Hatfield

Details

AGLC: R v Hatfield [2004] VSCA 195
Case: [2004] VSCA 195
Decision Date: 14 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hatfield involved the defendant, who was charged with armed robbery and theft of firearms. The dispute arose following the defendant's commission of a robbery against what was described as a "soft target" and the subsequent six-hour police siege that ensued. The matter was brought before the court for sentencing considerations, focusing on the appropriate punishment given the nature of the crimes, the defendant's age, and the circumstances surrounding the events.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, taking into account several legal issues. These included the severity of the crimes committed, the nature of the target, the length and impact of the ensuing police siege, and the defendant's age and mental state at the time of the offence. The court also needed to consider whether the two offences should be treated as a single transaction or as separate incidents for the purposes of sentencing, and whether the cumulative effect of the aggravating factors warranted a specific sentence.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that while the defendant was youthful, the aggravating circumstances of the offence subrogated this to other sentencing principles. It was determined that the defendant's mental condition did not warrant treating the two offences, which were separated in time, as a single transaction. The court considered the total effective sentence of five years' imprisonment with a minimum term of two years and nine months, concluding that it was not manifestly excessive. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed, reflecting the court's view that the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed.

Orders