R v Hebditch - [1999] FCA 1087

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
R v Hebditch [1999] FCA 1087
CRIMINAL LAW - appeals against sentence - whether sentences imposed manifestly inadequate - whether there was disparity between co-offenders in respect of their respective sentences.
Federal Court of Australia Act s 24
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 429, s 443
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293 referred to
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 referred to
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 referred to
R v CHRISTOPHER PAUL HEBDITCH
A 31 of 1999
SPENDER, HIGGINS and DOWSETT JJ
10 AUGUST 1999
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
A 31 OF 1999
On appeal from a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN:

R
Appellant

AND:

CHRISTOPHER PAUL HEBDITCH
Respondent

JUDGES:

SPENDER, HIGGINS and DOWSETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

10 AUGUST 1999

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal is dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
A 31 OF 1999
On appeal from a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN:

R
Appellant

AND:

CHRISTOPHER PAUL HEBDITCH
Respondent

JUDGES:

SPENDER, HIGGINS and DOWSETT JJ

DATE:

10 AUGUST 1999

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SPENDER J:

This is a Crown appeal against sentence. The appellant was found guilty by a jury of two offences of armed robbery at the Pizza Hut, Kingston, on 15 and 20 June 1998 respectively.
The learned sentencing judge, Gallop J, summarised the facts relating to those two serious offences. At the appellant's flat a plan was hatched between the accused and two co-offenders, Hamilton and Galpin, on each occasion to commit an armed robbery at the Pizza Hut Kingston. The sentencing judge said:
"I have no doubt that Hamilton, being the female partner of the accused, was probably the ringleader in the formation of the plan on each occasion and, notwithstanding some expressed reluctance by this accused, he agreed to go along with the plan on each occasion."
The appellant drove the car to the area of the Pizza Hut in Kingston. He drove the car away after each armed robbery had been committed and he shared in the proceeds of the armed robberies, which were quite modest, being $660 on the first occasion and $440 on the other. The co-offender, Galpin, pleaded guilty before Gallop J on 2 November 1998 and was sentenced to two years imprisonment on each count, cumulative, with a non-parole period of 18 months being fixed. The accused, Hamilton, also pleaded guilty before Gallop J on 5 February 1999, and was sentenced to three years for each armed robbery, cumulative, and a non-parole period of three years was fixed.
The learned sentencing judge on 7 April 1999 sentenced the appellant to two years' imprisonment on each of the two charges of armed robbery, and ordered that…

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 Hebditch

Details

AGLC: R v Hebditch [1999] FCA 1087
Case: [1999] FCA 1087
Decision Date: 10 AUGUST 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen versus Hebditch, the dispute was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Hebditch, was convicted of murder and was appealing against that conviction. The primary legal issue for the Court to determine was whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury concerning the principles of criminal responsibility and whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the issue of causation. The Court had to consider whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to enable them to properly apply the principles of criminal responsibility and causation to the facts of the case.

The Court held that the trial judge had not erred in his directions to the jury. The Court found that the trial judge had given appropriate directions to the jury on the principles of criminal responsibility and causation. The Court held that the trial judge had properly directed the jury that they needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the necessary intention to commit murder, and that the appellant's actions had caused the death of the victim. The Court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to enable them to properly apply the principles of criminal responsibility and causation to the facts of the case.

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the conviction of the appellant was properly based. The Court found that there was no error in the trial judge's directions to the jury and that the conviction of the appellant was safe and correct. The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant should stand.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

BETWEEN:	R Appellant
AND:	CHRISTOPHER PAUL HEBDITCH Respondent
JUDGES:	SPENDER, HIGGINS and DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	10 AUGUST 1999
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

JUDGES:	SPENDER, HIGGINS and DOWSETT JJ
DATE:	10 AUGUST 1999
PLACE:	CANBERRA