R v Hogan - [2015] QCA 151

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hogan [2015] QCA 151

PARTIES:

R
v
HOGAN, Matthew Steven
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 31 of 2015
DC No 145 of 2014
DC No 146 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

21 August 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 August 2015

JUDGE:

Fraser JA and Ann Lyons and North JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

2.   Appeal is allowed.

3.   Sentence imposed in the District Court with respect to count 1 on Indictment 146 of 2014 is varied by reducing the period of imprisonment to three years suspended after nine months with an operational period of three years.

4.   Sentences imposed in the District Court with respect to counts 1, 2 and 3 on Indictment 145 of 2014 are varied by ordering that the term of imprisonment of 12 months is suspended after nine months with an operational period of 12 months.

5.   Sentences imposed in the District Court are otherwise confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of supplying a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a dangerous drug, one count of possessing property obtained from supplying a dangerous drug and one count of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent periods of imprisonment of 12 months in relation to the three counts of supplying a dangerous drug, six months in relation to the count of possessing a dangerous drug, nine months in relation to the count of possessing property obtained from supplying a dangerous drug and four years suspended after 12 months with an operational period of five years in relation to the count of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant forced open the complainant’s mouth and placed two or three small tablets in the back of the complainant’s throat – where the applicant poured water into the complainant’s mouth, causing the complainant to swallow the pills with the water – where the complainant experienced neuroleptic malignant syndrome – where the applicant was young at the time of the sentencing hearing – where the applicant had an irrelevant previous criminal history – where there was no malice in the applicant’s conduct – where the applicant did not use a weapon – where there was no sustained attack on the complainant – where the complainant manifested a desire for illegal substances – where the applicant had a good work history – where the applicant had strong prospects of rehabilitation – whether the learned sentencing judge sufficiently took into account the applicant’s personal mitigating factors at the sentencing hearing – whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive

R v Amituanai(1995) 78 A Crim R 588; [1995]…

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 Hogan

Details

AGLC: R v Hogan [2015] QCA 151
Case: [2015] QCA 151
Decision Date: 21 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hogan involved the applicant, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges including supplying a dangerous drug, possessing a dangerous drug, possessing property obtained from supplying a dangerous drug, and grievous bodily harm. The District Court imposed a series of sentences, including concurrent terms of imprisonment and a suspended sentence. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered the applicant's personal mitigating factors and whether the sentences imposed were excessive. The applicant emphasised his young age at the time of sentencing, lack of malice, absence of a weapon, and absence of a sustained attack. The applicant also highlighted his good work history and strong prospects for rehabilitation. The court needed to determine if these factors warranted a reduction in the severity of the sentences.

The court granted the application for leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The court found that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently taken into account the applicant’s personal mitigating factors, particularly his young age and good prospects for rehabilitation. The court determined that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. Consequently, the court varied the sentences, reducing the severity of the imprisonment terms and ordering suspended sentences with operational periods. The court confirmed the remaining sentences imposed by the District Court.

The final orders of the court were to grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence, allow the appeal, and vary certain sentences to impose suspended sentences with operational periods. The sentences for the grievous bodily harm charge and the drug-related charges were reduced to reflect the mitigating factors presented by the applicant. The remaining sentences were confirmed as imposed by the District Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

2. Appeal is allowed.

3. Sentence imposed in the District Court with respect to count 1 on Indictment 146 of 2014 is varied by reducing the period of imprisonment to three years suspended after nine months with an operational period of three years.

4. Sentences imposed in the District Court with respect to counts 1, 2 and 3 on Indictment 145 of 2014 are varied by ordering that the term of imprisonment of 12 months is suspended after nine months with an operational period of 12 months.

5. Sentences imposed in the District Court are otherwise confirmed.

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 Hogan [2015] QCA 151
PARTIES:	R v HOGAN, Matthew Steven (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 31 of 2015 DC No 145 of 2014 DC No 146 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	21 August 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 August 2015
JUDGE:	Fraser JA and Ann Lyons and North JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted. 2. Appeal is allowed. 3. Sentence imposed in the District Court with respect to count 1 on Indictment 146 of 2014 is varied by reducing the period of imprisonment to three years suspended after nine months with an operational period of three years. 4. Sentences imposed in the District Court with respect to counts 1, 2 and 3 on Indictment 145 of 2014 are varied by ordering that the term of imprisonment of 12 months is suspended after nine months with an operational period of 12 months. 5. Sentences imposed in the District Court are otherwise confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of supplying a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a dangerous drug, one count of possessing property obtained from supplying a dangerous drug and one count of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent periods of imprisonment of 12 months in relation to the three counts of supplying a dangerous drug, six months in relation to the count of possessing a dangerous drug, nine months in relation to the count of possessing property obtained from supplying a dangerous drug and four years suspended after 12 months with an operational period of five years in relation to the count of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant forced open the complainant’s mouth and placed two or three small tablets in the back of the complainant’s throat – where the applicant poured water into the complainant’s mouth, causing the complainant to swallow the pills with the water – where the complainant experienced neuroleptic malignant syndrome – where the applicant was young at the time of the sentencing hearing – where the applicant had an irrelevant previous criminal history – where there was no malice in the applicant’s conduct – where the applicant did not use a weapon – where there was no sustained attack on the complainant – where the complainant manifested a desire for illegal substances – where the applicant had a good work history – where the applicant had strong prospects of rehabilitation – whether the learned sentencing judge sufficiently took into account the applicant’s personal mitigating factors at the sentencing hearing – whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive R v Amituanai(1995) 78 A Crim R 588; [1995]…