R v Hawdon - [2011] QCA 219

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hawdon [2011] QCA 219

PARTIES:

R
v
HAWDON, Grant-Lee Michael
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 241 of 2010
DC No 83 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gladstone

DELIVERED ON:

2 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 August 2011

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to burglary and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with excessive speeding and ten summary offences – where the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years for burglary and two years for the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with excessive speeding – where the applicant was disqualified absolutely from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence – where no parole eligibility date was given – where the applicant had an extensive criminal history and traffic history – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 159A, s 189

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
R v Anderson[2004] QCA 74, considered
R v Gates [2002] QCA 320, considered
R v Kothe, unreported, CA No 213 of 1985, 8 October 1985, considered
R v Mancktelow, unreported, CA No 342 of 1989; CA No 346 of 1989, 26 February 1990, considered
R v Robinson[1995] QCA 131, considered
R v Walsh[2008] QCA 391, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with White JA's reasons for refusing the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The applicant primarily emphasised R v Anderson[1] in contending that his six year sentence with no fixed early parole eligibility date was manifestly excessive. In addition to the matters raised by White JA, I consider there is a further important distinguishing feature between Anderson and the present case. The six year sentence imposed on the applicant for the offence of burglary also reflected the applicant's criminality in the quite separate, unrelated and serious offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle for which he was given a two year concurrent sentence. That offence concerned the applicant's involvement in a police chase through suburban streets at high very speeds during which it was miraculous that serious injury was not inflicted on innocent members of the community and their property. By contrast, Anderson's offending was all property-related. The applicant's effective six year sentence for two separate and serious offences, in the context of his antecedents,…

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 Hawdon

Details

AGLC: R v Hawdon [2011] QCA 219
Case: [2011] QCA 219
Decision Date: 2 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including burglary, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with excessive speeding, and ten summary offences. The court sentenced the applicant to six years' imprisonment for the burglary and two years for the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with excessive speeding. Additionally, the applicant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence absolutely, and no parole eligibility date was specified. The applicant's extensive criminal and traffic history was considered during sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the offences committed. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was within the bounds of what could be considered a reasonable punishment given the nature of the offences and the applicant’s criminal history.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It took into account the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's history of reoffending, and the need to deter the applicant and others from engaging in similar conduct. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public safety and the deterrent effect of the sentence. It concluded that the sentence was proportionate and reasonable given the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Hawdon [2011] QCA 219
PARTIES:	R v HAWDON, Grant-Lee Michael (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 241 of 2010 DC No 83 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Gladstone
DELIVERED ON:	2 September 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 August 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to burglary and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with excessive speeding and ten summary offences – where the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years for burglary and two years for the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with excessive speeding – where the applicant was disqualified absolutely from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence – where no parole eligibility date was given – where the applicant had an extensive criminal history and traffic history – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 159A, s 189 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited R v Anderson[2004] QCA 74, considered R v Gates [2002] QCA 320, considered R v Kothe, unreported, CA No 213 of 1985, 8 October 1985, considered R v Mancktelow, unreported, CA No 342 of 1989; CA No 346 of 1989, 26 February 1990, considered R v Robinson[1995] QCA 131, considered R v Walsh[2008] QCA 391, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent