R v Hatten - [2006] QCA 359

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hatten [2006] QCA 359

PARTIES:

R
v
HATTEN, Sean Stephen
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 43 of 2006
CA No 284 of 2005
SC No 323 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

20 September 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 September 2006

JUDGES:

Holmes JA and Jones and Mullins JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application to set aside notice of abandonment is allowed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence is reinstated

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN GRANTED – where indefinite sentence imposed on applicant – where applicant originally filed notice of appeal against sentence in time but later abandoned that application – where applicant young with borderline IQ – where some merit to appeal in light of psychiatric evidence and legal authority – whether extension of time should be granted

R v Tabe [1983] 2 Qd R 60

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
S G Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland), for the respondent

HOLMES JA: The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against his sentence in circumstances in which his original application for leave to appeal against sentence was abandoned, but it seems to me that his application is more appropriately treated as an application to have the abandonment set aside and the application for leave to appeal reinstated under Rule 69 of the Criminal Practice Rules.

On the 3rd of October 2005, an indefinite sentence was imposed on the applicant on one count of attempted murder pursuant to Section 163 of the Penalties and Sentences Act (1992). A nominal sentence of 15 years imprisonment as required by Section 163(2) of the Act was imposed. 239 days spent in pre-sentence custody was declared. The learned Sentencing Judge exercised his discretion not to declare the full period spent by the applicant on remand on the charge.

The applicant had originally filed a notice for leave to appeal against his sentence on 1st of November 2005 within time. On 4th of January 2006, he filed a notice of abandonment of that application. However, on the 20th of February 2006 he filed an application for extension of time.

He is now unrepresented, Legal Aid not being forthcoming for the current application and he originally sought an adjournment of it. I was not, as I indicated, disposed to adjourn the application and he proceeded to give us his argument on it. The basis for that declining of the adjournment was simply this: that the applicant has had ample opportunity to prepare as best he can and there is no prospect of his being…

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 [2006] QCA 359
Case: [2006] QCA 359
Decision Date: 20 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hatten, the applicant was convicted of a crime in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The applicant, who has a borderline IQ, was sentenced to an indefinite term of imprisonment. The applicant originally filed a notice of appeal against his sentence within the prescribed time limit but later decided to abandon the appeal. The applicant now seeks to set aside the notice of abandonment and to reinstate his appeal against the sentence. The primary issue before the court was whether an extension of time should be granted for the applicant to appeal his sentence, despite having previously abandoned the appeal.

The court considered the applicant's borderline IQ and the psychiatric evidence presented. The court noted that the applicant had some merit in his appeal, given the psychiatric evidence and the relevant legal authority. The court held that the applicant's borderline IQ and the psychiatric evidence presented were relevant factors in determining whether to grant an extension of time for the appeal. The court also considered the applicant's age and the potential impact of the indefinite sentence on his life.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court decided to allow the application to set aside the notice of abandonment and to reinstate the applicant's appeal against his sentence. The court held that the applicant's borderline IQ and the psychiatric evidence presented were significant factors in favour of granting an extension of time for the appeal. The court also noted that the applicant's age and the potential impact of the indefinite sentence on his life were relevant considerations in the decision. The court concluded that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient merit in his appeal to warrant an extension of time.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to set aside notice of abandonment is allowed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence is reinstated

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 [2006] QCA 359
PARTIES:	R v HATTEN, Sean Stephen (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 43 of 2006 CA No 284 of 2005 SC No 323 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	20 September 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 September 2006
JUDGES:	Holmes JA and Jones and Mullins JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application to set aside notice of abandonment is allowed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence is reinstated
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN GRANTED – where indefinite sentence imposed on applicant – where applicant originally filed notice of appeal against sentence in time but later abandoned that application – where applicant young with borderline IQ – where some merit to appeal in light of psychiatric evidence and legal authority – whether extension of time should be granted R v Tabe [1983] 2 Qd R 60
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf S G Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland), for the respondent