R v Hudson

[1997] QCA 478

COURT OF APPEAL

[1997] QCA 478

MACROSSAN CJ
DOWSETT J
HELMAN J

CA No 332 of 1997

THE QUEEN

v.

GARY DAVID HUDSON  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 18/11/97

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed.  The sentencing Judge had to deal with a very large number of offences one way and another.  The effective sentence he imposed was because of the cumulative structure one of eight years and nine months applicable to rape, and a further five years for attempted armed robbery in company with personal violence making a total effective sentence of 13 years and nine months. 

He made no recommendation for early parole.  He also imposed sentences for the large range of accompanying offences with which he had to deal but they were for lesser terms, and it is not necessary to refer to those individual sentences. 

On the indictment dealing with rape, there had been one charge of rape and two of attempted rape involving the same young female child aged less then 10. 

There was another indictment with housebreaking, stealing and entering dwelling house charges, an ex officio indictment with a great number of charges of house entering, stealing, breaking entering and stealing, unlawful uses of motor vehicle, wilful damage and other offences of dishonesty including the armed robbery in company to which I have already referred.

Then use was made of a section 189 schedule which added another 109 charges of dishonesty of one sort and another and unlawful use of motor vehicles and other offences.  They had to be taken into consideration on the sentencing. 

The application made before us is on a very fine basis.  The head sentences are not objected to and the application merely urges that a recommendation be made for consideration for parole.  Even then it does not agitate large issues.  The correct view would seem to be - this is suggested to us and not dissented from - that the applicant would in any event be eligible for parole after serving two and a half years of the second cumulative term of five years. 

The submission is that the sentence is excessive because a parole recommendation was not made, it being suggested that it should have been for two years; that is, two years instead of the two and a half to which I have already referred.  We have to consider whether sentences are manifestly excessive before we will interfere and such a fine adjustment as is suggested to us is suspect from the start. 

Features here are the very large number of offences with which the sentencing Judge dealt, the very serious nature of some of them including the rape, the fact that the degree of cooperation which had been offered by the applicant was not unlimited and he showed some unwillingness in some respects, the very young age of the victim of the rape, and the fact that the applicant had been sentenced to a great number of previous terms - none of them I think it is correct to say being of any great length, but terms of imprisonment in many cases.

Examining the sentencing Judge's reasons which are extensive enough, it would appear that he took into account relevant matters.  In my opinion, there is no basis for saying in this case that the discretion was miscarried or that the sentences imposed are manifestly excessive in their effect, and I would refuse the application.

DOWSETT J:  I agree.

HELMAN J:  I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The application is refused.

-----