R v Hedlefs

Case [2017] QCA 199

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hedlefs [2017] QCA 199

PARTIES:

R
v
HEDLEFS, Jason Mark
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 352 of 2016
SC No 607 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 28 November 2016 (Boddice J)

DELIVERED ON:

8 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 May 2017

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philippides and McMurdo JJA

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was charged with murder but pleaded guilty to manslaughter – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and a serious violent offender declaration was made – where a total of 926 days in pre-sentence custody was declared as time served – where the grounds of appeal were that the sentencing judge failed to consider relevant circumstances and that in all the circumstances the sentence was manifestly excessive – where the offence was committed against a friend, with a weapon and without provocation – where the applicant had an extensive criminal history and significant substance abuse problems – where the learned sentencing judge considered the timely plea of guilty and that the applicant showed remorse and cooperated with authorities – where the purpose of the sentence was said to be punishment, rehabilitation, general deterrence and denunciation – where the applicant submitted that the learned sentencing judge failed to expressly identify lack of intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm as a relevant consideration – where the applicant submitted that the learned sentencing judge instead focused on his Honour’s view that there was no provocation – where the applicant sought a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment without a serious violent offence declaration – where the respondent submitted that lack of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm was not a relevant consideration given the offence pleaded to was manslaughter – where the respondent contended that there was nothing to show that the sentence was beyond the bounds of an appropriate sentence in light of comparable cases – whether the judge erred in exercising the sentencing discretion – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 300

R v Arnoutovic[2001] QCA 89, cited
R v DeSalvo (2002) 127 A Crim R 229; [2002] QCA 63, considered
R v Duncombe[2005] QCA 142, considered
R v Dwyer[2008] QCA 117, considered
R v Frame[2009] QCA 9, cited
R v Matthews[2007] QCA 144, considered
R v McDougall & Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, considered
R v Mooka[2007] QCA 36, considered
R v MP[2004] QCA 170, considered
R v Murray[2012] QCA 68, considered
R v Sebo; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2007) 179 A Crim R 24; [2007] QCA 426, considered

Continue reading R v Hedlefs

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hedlefs [2017] QCA 199
Case
[2017] QCA 199
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hedlefs applied for leave to appeal against his sentence, which was imposed after he pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The applicant argued that the learned sentencing judge failed to consider relevant circumstances, specifically his lack of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in exercising their discretion and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties. Hedlefs submitted that the sentencing judge failed to expressly identify the lack of intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm as a relevant consideration and instead focused on the absence of provocation. The applicant sought a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment without a serious violent offender declaration. The respondent contended that the lack of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm was not a relevant consideration given the offence to which the applicant pleaded, and that there was nothing to show that the sentence was beyond the bounds of an appropriate sentence in light of comparable cases.

The court found that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the relevant circumstances, including the applicant's lack of intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the purpose of the sentence was punishment, rehabilitation, general deterrence, and denunciation, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The final orders were that the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Hedlefs seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the grounds that:(a)the learned sentencing judge failed to take account of relevant circumstances, in particular Hedlefs’ lack of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm; and(b)the sentence is manifestly excessive.Factual background of the offending An agreed schedule of facts[1] was tendered at the hearing. Except where indicated, the following comes from that schedule.[1]AB 50-55. At the time of the offence Hedlefs was 49 years old, and Hunt was 40 years old. They had known each other for about four months, during which time they saw each other regularly (fortnightly). Hunt did mechanical work on Hedlefs’ car, and drove him around when Hedlefs lost his licence. In return, Hedlefs gave Hunt cigarettes and prepared meals for him when Hunt was at Hedlefs’ house. Hunt had formed a relationship with Hedlefs’ children, Q (five years old) and Z (one year old), and had begun referring to them as his god-children. Hedlefs and Hunt were both heroin users. At 6.50 am on 14 May 2014, Hunt phoned Hedlefs to ask if he could come over and borrow some money to “get on”.[2] Hunt arrived a short while later. He asked if they could go somewhere in Hedlefs’ car, but Hedlefs was preparing Q for school and said Hunt would have to wait until after he went to school. Later Hedlefs rode to school with his children, and Hunt waited back at the house.[2]The phrase “get on” refers to buying and taking drugs. When Hedlefs got home, Hunt phoned his drug supplier. They then drove (with Z) to a service station where Hedlefs withdrew $100 and gave it to Hunt to buy heroin. While Hunt was buying the heroin, Hedlefs went to fill a water container. Hunt came over and borrowed another $3 for a sharps kit, which he bought at a pharmacy across the road. They then drove home to Hedlefs’ house. Once home, each injected some heroin which Hunt prepared. Hedlefs had much more than Hunt. Hunt sat on the lounge to watch a movie, while Hedlefs began to clean the house. Hedlefs felt intoxicated for about four to six hours. About midday Hunt left for a doctor’s appointment. When he came back he borrowed $10 to fill the script. Having obtained his medicine, Hunt resumed watching movies on the lounge. About 2.30 pm Hedlefs went to collect Q from school. From this point of the narrative the account of some events came from Q. When they returned, Hunt appeared intoxicated and was still on the lounge, watching movies. Hedlefs brought his bicycle into the lounge to do some work on it. Late in the afternoon Hedlefs and Hunt became involved in a verbal argument over the money that had been loaned earlier in the day. Q recalled Hedlefs becoming “really, really angry”. Hedlefs was talking to Hunt about how Hunt had said he would pay the money back by the end of the day. Hedlefs picked up a “hammer” or a similar tool. Q described having seen Hedlefs use that implement previously when putting wheels on his easy-roller. Hedlefs approached Hunt who was still sitting in the lounge chair. Hedlefs called him a “cunt”. He used the hammer/tool to hit Hunt. He hit Hunt more than once,[3] to the torso with significant force on one occasion, causing a broken rib, and a laceration to the spleen. Q’s account was that Hunt had been hit in the “tummy”, and the knee and shoulder.[3]However, it was not known how many times he was hit: AB 52.

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.