R v Heckendorf

Case [2017] QCA 59

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Heckendorf [2017] QCA 59

PARTIES:

R
v
HECKENDORF, Jesse William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 319 of 2016
DC No 451 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 1 November 2016

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 March 2017

JUDGES:

Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal 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 an offence of rape and one of assault with intent to commit rape – where the applicant had viciously raped the complainant after meeting her and drinking with her throughout the course of the afternoon – where the complainant had not demonstrated any “romantic interest” in the applicant – where the rape included violent assaults and choking of the complainant and resulted in the complainant fracturing a rib – where the complainant contracted Hepatitis C as a result of the rape – where the actual act of penetration was described as “relatively quick” but the attack was “particularly vicious” – where the applicant initially denied the rape had occurred but ultimately pleaded guilty – where the applicant was aged 22 years at the time of the offence – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment with the automatic result that the offence was declared a serious violent offence – whether and to what extent a sentencing judge can consider a pattern of sentencing outcomes consistently with Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58 – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, considered
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
R v Adams[2009] QCA 51, cited
R v Benjamin (2012) 224 A Crim R 40; [2012] QCA 188, cited
R v Newman (2007) 172 A Crim R 171; [2007] QCA 198, cited
R v Porter[2008] QCA 203, cited
R v Postchild[2013] QCA 227, cited
R v Purcell[2010] QCA 285, cited
R v Williams; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2014) 247 A Crim R 250; [2014] QCA 346, cited
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, considered

COUNSEL:

B J Power for the applicant
C W Heaton QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of McMurdo JA and the order proposed by his Honour.

  2. McMURDO JA:  On 1 November 2016 the applicant was convicted by his own pleas of guilty of an offence of rape and one of assault with…

Continue reading R v Heckendorf

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Heckendorf [2017] QCA 59
Case
[2017] QCA 59
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Heckendorf was before the court where the applicant appealed against his sentence for the offence of rape and assault with intent to commit rape. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the offence which involved a violent attack on a woman whom he met and spent the afternoon drinking with before the assault occurred. The attack was particularly vicious, including choking and violent assaults which resulted in the complainant fracturing a rib and contracting Hepatitis C. The applicant, who was 22 years old at the time of the offence, was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment which meant that the offence was automatically declared a serious violent offence.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. This involved considering whether the sentence was within the range of outcomes appropriate for the offence and whether the sentencing judge had taken into account relevant sentencing principles. The court also had to consider the extent to which a pattern of sentencing outcomes could be taken into account when assessing the sentence, in light of the High Court decision in Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the degree of violence used, and the impact of the offence on the complainant. The court noted that the sentence was within the range of outcomes that could be considered appropriate for the offence and that the sentencing judge had taken into account relevant sentencing principles. The court also noted that while a pattern of sentencing outcomes could be taken into account, it was not determinative of the appropriate sentence in each case. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

No further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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.