R v Hobson

Case [2003] QCA 67


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hobson [2002] QCA 67

PARTIES:

R
v
HOBSON, Amos James

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 373 of 2002

DC No 14 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

21 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 February 2003

JUDGES:

McPherson and Davies JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal against sentence granted
New sentence imposed of 12 months imprisonment with release under the supervision of a parole officer for 2 years

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where applicant convicted of burglary in the night, with violence and grievous bodily harm – where applicant sentenced to three years imprisonment – whether manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:

P J Callaghan for the Applicant

D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

PHILIPPIDES J:  This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon the applicant on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive and also that there were errors made by the learned sentencing Judge in imposing the sentence he imposed.

On 28 October 2002 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary in the night and one count of grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in respect of each offence.  The applicant was 22 years of age at the time the offences were committed.  The complainant was 15 years old at the time and had been in a relationship with the applicant for the previous 12 months.

The applicant had been a visitor at the complainant's household.  The complainant and her family had moved from the Coen area to Kowanyama and had returned to Coen not long before the incident the subject of this application.  The applicant had learnt that the complainant's family had returned. 

At about 1.00 a.m. on 21 September 2001 the complainant heard the applicant calling out her name.  She went to the lounge room to find the applicant standing there.  He appeared to be drunk.  He then pulled her hair very hard and she fell to the floor screaming.  She assumed the foetal position. 

The applicant then began to kick her.  At this point the complainant's mother arrived home.  The applicant said to the complainant, "You shouldn't have come back from Kowanyama.  You're a slut.  You're a big hole" and he then stopped kicking the complainant and ran next door.  The complainant thought that she was kicked at least six to seven times to the head areas.

The complainant suffered lacerations to the inner part of her right upper and lower eyelids, tear drainage damage, haemorrhaging in her eyes, lacerations to her lip and facial bruising.  She could not see out of her right eye for some time.  She underwent surgery on…

Continue reading R v Hobson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hobson [2002] QCA 67
Case
[2003] QCA 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Hobson involved an applicant who had been convicted of a burglary that occurred at night, involving violence and causing grievous bodily harm. The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was inappropriate in the circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive. In considering this issue, the court examined the severity of the offence, the principles of sentencing, and the circumstances of the case. The court recognised that burglary with violence and grievous bodily harm is a serious offence, but also took into account the applicant's background, the likelihood of rehabilitation, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

After careful consideration, the court found that the original sentence of three years was indeed manifestly excessive. The court noted that while the offence was serious, the sentence should reflect the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing. The court imposed a new sentence of 12 months imprisonment, with the applicant to be released under the supervision of a parole officer for a period of two years. This new sentence was considered to be more appropriate, taking into account the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal against sentence granted

New sentence imposed of 12 months imprisonment with release under the supervision of a parole officer for 2 years

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.