R v Hill - [2005] QCA 18

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hill [2005] QCA 18

PARTIES:

R
v
HILL, Alexander Kenneth
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 354 of 2004
DC No 2336 of 2004
DC No 1511 of 2003
DC No 1510 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

10 February 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2005

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, Williams JA, Chesterman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where, at trial, the applicant had pleaded guilty to, and been convicted of, attempted armed robbery – where applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment to be suspended after 12 months for a period of three years – where applicant also was sentenced for breach of two intensive correction orders to nine months’ imprisonment and three months’ imprisonment – sentence for armed robbery was ordered to be served cumulatively on the earlier sentences – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 126(4)

R v Moodie [1999] QCA 125; CA No. 439 of 1998, 14 April 1999, cited

R v O’Brien [1995] QCA 397; CA No. 190 of 1995, 28 July 1995, cited

COUNSEL:

Mrs K M McGinness for the applicant
Mr M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

CHESTERMAN J: On 1 October 2004 the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted armed robbery. He was sentenced to a term of three years' imprisonment to be suspended after he had served 12 months. The operational period was three years. The sentence was made cumulative upon a sentence of nine months' imprisonment for assault occasioning bodily harm.

At about 7.40 p.m. on 13 July 2004 Xiao Ling Wang was serving in a convenience store owned by her family. The applicant entered the store wearing dark clothing, including a balaclava. He was armed with a knife. Mrs Wang left the counter and screamed for help. Her husband came from a back room. He picked up a bar stool and stood between his wife and the applicant. The applicant said nothing but began to push buttons on the cash register in an attempt to open it. He held the knife in his right hand as he did so.

When his efforts to open the register were unsuccessful, he threw it to the floor. By this time Mrs Wang had also picked up a bar stool and moved towards the applicant. By good chance a police officer was passing the shop and heard the screams. Drawing his service pistol, he entered and observed the applicant who, by this time, had dropped the knife. The police officer threw the…

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 Hill

Details

AGLC: R v Hill [2005] QCA 18
Case: [2005] QCA 18
Decision Date: 10 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hill involved the applicant who had pleaded guilty to attempted armed robbery and was subsequently convicted. The applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, to be suspended after 12 months for a period of three years. Additionally, the applicant received sentences for breaching two intensive correction orders amounting to nine months’ imprisonment and three months’ imprisonment respectively, with the armed robbery sentence to be served cumulatively on the earlier sentences. The applicant challenged the sentence imposed, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive, taking into account the various factors and circumstances of the case. The court had to consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and whether the sentence was disproportionate in the context of the applicant's criminal history and personal circumstances.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It considered the severity and nature of the offence, the applicant's criminal history, and the cumulative effect of the sentences. The court held that the sentence reflected a balanced approach, considering both the need for deterrence and the rehabilitation of the offender. The court also noted that the applicant had an opportunity to present mitigating factors at sentencing but chose not to do so. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was therefore refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Hill [2005] QCA 18
PARTIES:	R v HILL, Alexander Kenneth (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 354 of 2004 DC No 2336 of 2004 DC No 1511 of 2003 DC No 1510 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	10 February 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 February 2005
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Williams JA, Chesterman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where, at trial, the applicant had pleaded guilty to, and been convicted of, attempted armed robbery – where applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment to be suspended after 12 months for a period of three years – where applicant also was sentenced for breach of two intensive correction orders to nine months’ imprisonment and three months’ imprisonment – sentence for armed robbery was ordered to be served cumulatively on the earlier sentences – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 126(4) R v Moodie [1999] QCA 125; CA No. 439 of 1998, 14 April 1999, cited R v O’Brien [1995] QCA 397; CA No. 190 of 1995, 28 July 1995, cited
COUNSEL:	Mrs K M McGinness for the applicant Mr M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent