R v Hitchcock - [2019] QCA 60

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hitchcock [2019] QCA 60

PARTIES:

R
v
HITCHCOCK, Robert Ian
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 147 of 2018
SC No 1073 of 2017
SC No 190 of 2018
SC No 267 of 2018
SC No 678 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 21 May 2018 (Jackson J)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 4 March 2019
Date of Publication of Reasons: 12 April 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 March 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser and Philippides JJA

ORDER:

Date of Order: 4 March 2019

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pled guilty to, inter alia, producing and possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 200 grams (methylamphetamine) – where the applicant was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment in respect of the possession charge and nine years imprisonment in respect of the production charge, to be served concurrently – where the sentencing judge did not fix a parole eligibility date – where the applicant is required to serve half of his sentence before being eligible for parole – whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to take into account the guilty plea by not imposing a parole eligibility date – whether the sentence without an early parole eligibility date is manifestly inadequate

R v Amato[2013] QCA 158, applied
R v Flew[2008] QCA 290, cited
R v Randall[2019] QCA 25, followed
R v Watson[2017] QCA 82, cited

COUNSEL:

A S McDougall for the applicant
C L Birkett for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

SOFRONOFF P: On 4 March 2019 the Court dismissed this application for leave to appeal. These are the reasons for that decision.
On 7 August 2016 police searched the applicant’s property at Tallai. Police found a laboratory that proved to be one for the manufacture of methylamphetamine. They found methylamphetamine on or in the lab equipment, as well as a quantity of cocaine. They also found a pistol with a silencer attached to it, two .22 calibre rifles - one of which was loaded and had a scope, laser pointer and silencer attached to it - ammunition and some firearm parts.
During the search, police discovered a contract by the applicant of a storage unit at another premises. They searched those premises on 12 August 2016. They found 137 kilograms of various liquids that were found to contain over 2.6 kilograms of methylamphetamine. They also found various pieces of laboratory equipment that showed traces of methylamphetamine. A plastic trunk in the storage unit contained 14 rifles and another pistol with an attached silencer.
A further search of the applicant’s Tallai property on 14 and 15 August 2016 revealed a safe containing a quantity of drostanolone, testosterone…

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 Hitchcock

Details

AGLC: R v Hitchcock [2019] QCA 60
Case: [2019] QCA 60
Decision Date: 12 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hitchcock involved the appellant, who had pled guilty to charges of producing and possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 200 grams. The appellant was sentenced to a total of 22 years imprisonment, with 13 years for possession and nine years for production, to be served concurrently. The appellant was dissatisfied with the sentence, particularly the lack of a parole eligibility date, and sought to appeal the sentence as manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge failed to take into account the guilty plea by not imposing a parole eligibility date, which resulted in the appellant being required to serve half of his sentence before being eligible for parole.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in not considering the guilty plea by not imposing a parole eligibility date, and whether the sentence without an early parole eligibility date was manifestly inadequate. The court considered the relevant sentencing principles and the effect of a guilty plea, as well as the relevant statutory provisions governing parole eligibility. The court noted that while a guilty plea is an important consideration in sentencing, it is not a guarantee of a reduced sentence or parole eligibility. The court also considered the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court held that the sentencing judge did not err in failing to impose a parole eligibility date, as the guilty plea did not necessarily warrant such a result. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate, as the appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment that reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court held that the appellant's argument that the sentence was inadequate because of the lack of a parole eligibility date was not sufficient to warrant interference with the sentence. The court also noted that the appellant's sentence was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such offences.

The court dismissed the appellant's appeal against sentence. The application for leave to appeal was refused on 4 March 2019. The appellant's sentence of 22 years imprisonment, with 13 years for possession and nine years for production, to be served concurrently, was upheld. The appellant was required to serve half of his sentence before being eligible for parole.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Order: 4 March 2019

Application 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 Hitchcock [2019] QCA 60
PARTIES:	R v HITCHCOCK, Robert Ian (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 147 of 2018 SC No 1073 of 2017 SC No 190 of 2018 SC No 267 of 2018 SC No 678 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 21 May 2018 (Jackson J)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order: 4 March 2019 Date of Publication of Reasons: 12 April 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 March 2019
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser and Philippides JJA
ORDER:	Date of Order: 4 March 2019 Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pled guilty to, inter alia, producing and possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 200 grams (methylamphetamine) – where the applicant was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment in respect of the possession charge and nine years imprisonment in respect of the production charge, to be served concurrently – where the sentencing judge did not fix a parole eligibility date – where the applicant is required to serve half of his sentence before being eligible for parole – whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to take into account the guilty plea by not imposing a parole eligibility date – whether the sentence without an early parole eligibility date is manifestly inadequate R v Amato[2013] QCA 158, applied R v Flew[2008] QCA 290, cited R v Randall[2019] QCA 25, followed R v Watson[2017] QCA 82, cited
COUNSEL:	A S McDougall for the applicant C L Birkett for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	ABF Legal for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent