R v Heazlewood - [2018] QSC 112

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Heazlewood [2018] QSC 112

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v
DANIEL PAUL HEAZLEWOOD
(the defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 1215 of 2017
SC No 644 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

SENTENCE

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane – 14 May 2018

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

14 May 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

9 May 2018, 14 May 2018

JUDGE:

Boddice J

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MANSLAUGHTER – SENTENCE – where the defendant plead guilty to manslaughter as a charge alternative to murder – where the defendant unlawfully killed his own mother – where the defendant interfered with the corpse – where the defendant was aged 22 years at the time of the offence – where the offence occurred during a struggle – where the defendant gave false accounts about the deceased’s whereabouts – where the defendant later confessed to police – where the defendant cooperated with police by identifying the location of the deceased – where no remains were recovered – where the defendant showed no remorse for the unlawful killing – where the defendant committed drug and driving related offences at a later time – where the defendant breached a suspended sentence – where sentences of imprisonment were imposed cumulatively – where a parole eligibility date was fixed

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – CONFISCATION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME AND RELATED MATTERS – FORFEITURE OR CONFISCATION – PROCEEDS OF CRIME, TAINTED PROPERTY OR CONFISCABLE PROPERTY – where a Serious Drug Offence Certificate was issued – where a Confiscation Order was issued pursuant to the Drugs Misuse Act, the Weapons Act and the Explosives Act

COUNSEL:

V Loury for the Crown
J B Godbolt for the defendant

SOLICITORS

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant

BODDICE J: Daniel Paul Heazlewood, you are to be sentenced today on one count of manslaughter and one count of interfering with a corpse, both on indictment 1215 of 2017. You are also to be sentenced on one count of producing a dangerous drug, one count of supplying a dangerous drug, one count of possessing anything used in connection with producing a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a dangerous drug, and one count of publishing or possessing instructions for producing dangerous drugs, all on indictment 644 of 2018, together with four summary charges, being one of unlawful possession of weapons, category A, B, or M; one of authority required to possess explosives; one of possessing utensils or pipes that had been used; and one of operating or interfering with the operation of a motor vehicle, dangerously in any place, excessively speeding or taking part in an unlawful race or unlawful speed trial.
To your credit, you pleaded guilty to all of the indictable offences and the summary charges. The plea of guilty to manslaughter occurred in the context of an indictment having been presented charging you with murder. The Crown…

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 Heazlewood

Details

AGLC: R v Heazlewood [2018] QSC 112
Case: [2018] QSC 112
Decision Date: 14 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Heazlewood, the defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter in relation to the unlawful killing of his mother, an offence that occurred during a struggle. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, where the defendant was sentenced for his crime as well as for subsequent drug and driving related offences and a breach of a suspended sentence. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the manslaughter charge, taking into account factors such as the defendant's age at the time of the offence, his lack of remorse, and his subsequent offending behaviour. The court also needed to decide on the application of a Confiscation Order under the Drugs Misuse Act, the Weapons Act and the Explosives Act.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was the appropriate sentence for the manslaughter charge. In assessing the sentence, the court considered various factors, including the defendant's age, the circumstances of the offence, his subsequent offending behaviour, and the lack of remorse shown. The court also needed to decide whether to impose a cumulative sentence for the manslaughter charge and the subsequent offences, and whether to fix a parole eligibility date. The court also had to consider the application of a Confiscation Order under the Drugs Misuse Act, the Weapons Act and the Explosives Act, in light of the defendant's subsequent offending behaviour.

The court found that the defendant's actions warranted a significant sentence for the manslaughter charge, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the lack of remorse shown. The court determined that a cumulative sentence was appropriate, given the defendant's subsequent offending behaviour, including drug and driving related offences and a breach of a suspended sentence. The court fixed a parole eligibility date, and also issued a Confiscation Order under the Drugs Misuse Act, the Weapons Act and the Explosives Act, in light of the defendant's subsequent offending behaviour. The court concluded that the defendant's actions warranted a sentence of imprisonment of 15 years, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 4 months.

The court ordered that the defendant be imprisoned for 15 years, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 4 months. The court also issued a Confiscation Order under the Drugs Misuse Act, the Weapons Act and the Explosives Act, in light of the defendant's subsequent offending behaviour. The court found that the defendant's actions warranted a significant sentence for the manslaughter charge, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the lack of remorse shown. The court also determined that a cumulative sentence was appropriate, given the defendant's subsequent offending behaviour, including drug and driving related offences and a breach of a suspended sentence.

Orders