R v Hatten - [2008] QSC 320

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hatten [2008] QSC 320

PARTIES:

R
v
SEAN STEPHEN HATTEN

FILE NO/S:

SC No 323 of 2004

CA No 43 of 2006

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Re-sentence.

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

9 December 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 November 2008

JUDGE:

Byrne SJA

ORDER:

1.   That, pursuant to s. 163 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the offender be imprisoned for an indefinite term;

2.   That the term of imprisonment which would have been imposed had the indefinite sentence not been imposed is imprisonment for 15 years;

3.   Declare pursuant to s. 159A(1) of the said Act, that the 1401 days spent in pre-sentence custody from 7 February 2005 until today be taken to be imprisonment already served under the sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where the offender assaulted and stabbed a woman in bushland - whether the defendant is a serious danger to the community – whether an indefinite sentence should be imposed – whether days spent in pre-sentence custody for the attempted murder and for no other reason should not be declared
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992
Buckley v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 605
R v Hatten [2007] QCA 46

COUNSEL:

Mr D.L. Meredith for the Crown.
Mr C. Reid for the Defendant.

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland).
Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant.

BYRNE SJA:

Indefinite Sentence Sought

On his plea of guilty, Sean Hatten is to be sentenced for attempted murder. The main question is whether an indefinite sentence should be imposed under s.163(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (“the Act”).

In the circumstances of this case, before an indefinite sentence may be imposed, the court must be satisfied[1]:
[1]s. 163(3)(b).

“that the offender is a serious danger to the community because of –

(i) the offender’s antecedents, character, age, health or mental condition; and

(ii) the severity of the violent offence; and

(iii) any special circumstances”.

The court may make a finding that Mr Hatten is a serious danger to the community only if satisfied by acceptable, cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability that the evidence is of sufficient weight to justify that finding.[2]
[2]s. 170.

By s. 163(4):

“In determining whether the offender is a serious danger to the
community, the court must have regard to—
(a) whether the nature of the offence is exceptional; and
(b) the offender’s antecedents, age and character; and
(c) any medical, psychiatric, prison or other relevant report
in relation to the offender; and
(d) the risk of serious physical harm to members of the
community if an indefinite sentence were not imposed;
and
(e) the need to protect members of the community from the
risk mentioned in paragraph (d).”

That list of considerations does not “limit the matters to which a court may have regard in determining whether to impose an indefinite sentence”.[3]
[3]s. 163(5).

Mr…

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 Hatten

Details

AGLC: R v Hatten [2008] QSC 320
Case: [2008] QSC 320
Decision Date: 9 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hatten, the offender, Hatten, stood before the court to face charges stemming from a serious assault and stabbing of a woman in bushland. The case was heard and decided by a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the offender, considering the severity of the crime and the potential risk he posed to the community. The court also had to determine whether the days Hatten spent in pre-sentence custody should be declared as time already served.

The court was tasked with examining whether Hatten represented a serious danger to the community, which would warrant an indefinite sentence under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the 1401 days Hatten spent in custody prior to sentencing should be counted as time already served. The legal issues thus involved both the imposition of an appropriate sentence and the declaration of pre-sentence custody time.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Hatten did indeed pose a serious danger to the community, justifying the imposition of an indefinite sentence. The court also concluded that the time Hatten spent in custody should be recognised as time already served under the sentence. Therefore, the court ordered that Hatten be imprisoned for an indefinite term, with a concurrent term of 15 years, and declared that the 1401 days spent in custody should be taken as time already served.

The final orders of the court were that Hatten should be imprisoned for an indefinite term, with the term of imprisonment that would have been imposed in the absence of an indefinite sentence being 15 years. Furthermore, the court declared that the 1401 days Hatten spent in pre-sentence custody should be recognised as time already served under the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That, pursuant to s. 163 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the offender be imprisoned for an indefinite term;

2. That the term of imprisonment which would have been imposed had the indefinite sentence not been imposed is imprisonment for 15 years;

3. Declare pursuant to s. 159A(1) of the said Act, that the 1401 days spent in pre-sentence custody from 7 February 2005 until today be taken to be imprisonment already served under the sentence.

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 Hatten [2008] QSC 320
PARTIES:	R v SEAN STEPHEN HATTEN
FILE NO/S:	SC No 323 of 2004 CA No 43 of 2006
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Re-sentence.
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	9 December 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 November 2008
JUDGE:	Byrne SJA
ORDER:	1. *That, pursuant to s. 163 of the Penalties and Sentences Act* 1992, the offender be imprisoned for an indefinite term; 2. That the term of imprisonment which would have been imposed had the indefinite sentence not been imposed is imprisonment for 15 years; 3. Declare pursuant to s. 159A(1) of the said Act, that the 1401 days spent in pre-sentence custody from 7 February 2005 until today be taken to be imprisonment already served under the sentence.**
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where the offender assaulted and stabbed a woman in bushland - whether the defendant is a serious danger to the community – whether an indefinite sentence should be imposed – whether days spent in pre-sentence custody for the attempted murder and for no other reason should not be declared Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 Buckley v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 605 R v Hatten [2007] QCA 46
COUNSEL:	Mr D.L. Meredith for the Crown. Mr C. Reid for the Defendant.
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland). Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant.