R v Huebner - [2006] QCA 406

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Huebner [2006] QCA 406

PARTIES:

R
v
HUEBNER, Sven
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 54 of 2006
SC No 17 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 October 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 September 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, Holmes JA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant convicted of five offences of violence against two women – where offences against both women involved applicant’s use of bondage techniques – sentencing judge rejected applicant’s assertion that offences against first woman were committed with intention to benefit her – whether applicant’s account of events leading to death of second woman should be accepted – level of criminality involved – totality principle – whether total sentence of 16 years imprisonment with serious violent offence declaration manifestly excessive

R v Baggott [2000] QCA 153; CA No 1 of 2000, 3 May 2000, considered
R v Clarke; ex parte A-G [1999] QCA 438; CA Nos 68 and 82 of 1999, 22 October 1999, considered
R v Ogborne [2006] QCA 236; CA No 232 of 2005, 23 June 2006, considered
R v Streatfield (1991) 53 A Crim R 320, considered
R v Sutherland, unreported; CA No 323 of 1990, 26 March 1991, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn SC for the applicant
A J Rafter SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

JERRARD JA: In this matter I have read the reasons for judgment and order proposed by Holmes JA and respectfully agree with those reasons and order.

HOLMES JA: The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence was convicted of five offences of violence: disabling to commit an indictable offence, torture, assault occasioning bodily harm in company, deprivation of liberty and manslaughter. In respect of the first three offences, he was sentenced to four years imprisonment and in respect of the fourth, two years imprisonment. Those sentences were concurrent, but cumulative upon a sentence of 12 years imprisonment imposed on the fifth count, manslaughter. All offences were declared to be serious violent offences, with the result that the applicant must serve 80 per cent of the 16 year total before he becomes eligible for parole.

The manslaughter charge

The manslaughter charge related to the killing of Linda Roberts. The applicant and his co-accused, Amy Maher, had gone to trial on a charge of murdering Ms Roberts. Each, while accepting that she had visited the house they were living in on the day she died, 18 August 2001,…

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 Huebner

Details

AGLC: R v Huebner [2006] QCA 406
Case: [2006] QCA 406
Decision Date: 20 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Huebner involved the appellant who was convicted of five offences of violence against two women. The appellant was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for these offences. The appellant appealed against the severity of his sentence, claiming that it was manifestly excessive. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was unjust given the totality of the circumstances.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive, considering the totality principle and the level of criminality involved. The court had to assess the severity of the offences, the appellant's account of events, and the sentencing judge's decision to reject the appellant's claim that the offences against the first woman were intended to benefit her. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the sentence should be reduced or if it was appropriate given the serious nature of the crimes committed.

The High Court found that the appellant's account of events leading to the death of the second woman was not credible. The court held that the sentence of 16 years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The totality principle was applied, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the level of criminality and the need to protect society.

The High Court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The total sentence of 16 years imprisonment with a declaration of a serious violent offence was deemed appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Huebner [2006] QCA 406
PARTIES:	R v HUEBNER, Sven (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 54 of 2006 SC No 17 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 October 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 September 2006
JUDGES:	Jerrard JA, Holmes JA and Cullinane J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant convicted of five offences of violence against two women – where offences against both women involved applicant’s use of bondage techniques – sentencing judge rejected applicant’s assertion that offences against first woman were committed with intention to benefit her – whether applicant’s account of events leading to death of second woman should be accepted – level of criminality involved – totality principle – whether total sentence of 16 years imprisonment with serious violent offence declaration manifestly excessive R v Baggott [2000] QCA 153; CA No 1 of 2000, 3 May 2000, considered R v Clarke; ex parte A-G [1999] QCA 438; CA Nos 68 and 82 of 1999, 22 October 1999, considered R v Ogborne [2006] QCA 236; CA No 232 of 2005, 23 June 2006, considered R v Streatfield (1991) 53 A Crim R 320, considered R v Sutherland, unreported; CA No 323 of 1990, 26 March 1991, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Glynn SC for the applicant A J Rafter SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent