R v Hughes - [1998] QCA 61

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 061
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 437 of 1997

Brisbane

[R. v. Hughes]

T H E Q U E E N

RICHARD ALLAN HUGHES

(Applicant) Appellant
Pincus J.A.
McPherson J.A.
Fryberg J

Judgment delivered 17 April 1998

Joint reasons for judgment of McPherson and Pincus JJ.A.; separate reasons of
Fryberg J. dissenting in part.

1.         APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED.
2.         APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE ON ALL COUNTS ALLOWED.
3.         ON EACH OF COUNTS 1, 2 AND 3 SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS COMMENCING ON 7 NOVEMBER 1997 IS IMPOSED.
4. FURTHER ORDER THAT AFTER SERVING THAT TERM OF IMPRISONMENT THE APPLICANT BE RELEASED PURSUANT TO SECTION 92(1)(b) OF THE PENALTIES AND SENTENCES ACT 1992 UNDER SUPERVISION OF AN AUTHORISED COMMISSION OFFICER FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS COMMENCING FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED AT SENTENCE HEARING ON 7 NOVEMBER 1997 EXCLUDING THE CONDITION REQUIRING APPLICANT TO PAY THE SUM OF $6,000 BY WAY OF COMPENSATION.
5.         FURTHER ORDER THAT WITHIN 3 YEARS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER THE APPLICANT PAY THE SUM OF $6,000 BY WAY OF COMPENSATION TO

THE REGISTRAR OF THE DISTRICT COURT AT BRISBANE ON ACCOUNT OF
RONALD WILLIAM HUGHES.
6.         FURTHER ORDER THAT CONVICTIONS BE RECORDED IN RESPECT OF EACH COUNT.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL - Breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent - Stealing - Sentencing - Concurrent periods of probation and imprisonment - Section 92(1)(b) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 - Payment of compensation.
*R. v. Lihou, ex p. Attorney-General* [1975] Qd.R. 44 *R. v. Evans* [1958] 3 All E.R. 673 *R. v. Cheryl Emmett* (1968) 53 Cr.App.R. 203
Counsel:	Mr J. Farmer for the applicant/appellant Mr T. Winn for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	25 February 1998

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON & PINCUS JJ.A.

Judgment delivered 17 April 1998

The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court in Brisbane to an indictment charging, as count 1, breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent; count 2, stealing at that place a number and variety of articles of property specified in that count; and count 3, breaking into a shed at the same place and stealing two saws and a whipper snipper. The sentence imposed on the applicant in respect of count 1, was imprisonment for 2½ years, with a recommendation for parole after 6 months; on count 2, he was admitted to probation for three years with the special condition that he pay compensation in the sum of $6,000. For the offence in count 3, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months, to be served concurrently with the other sentences.

The basis of this application for leave to appeal against sentence is that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive; but it emerged in the course of hearing it that the sentencing orders now under review raise…

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 Hughes

Details

AGLC: R v Hughes [1998] QCA 61
Case: [1998] QCA 61
Decision Date: 17/04/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hughes involved the defendant, Hughes, who was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to steal, and subsequently stealing from the premises. The matter was heard in the relevant court, which delivered its judgment on the legal issues presented. The primary legal questions before the court were the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crimes and whether the court could order concurrent periods of probation and imprisonment, as well as whether compensation should be paid to the victim.

The court examined whether the statutory provisions, specifically section 92(1)(b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, allowed for the imposition of concurrent sentences of probation and imprisonment. The court also considered the principles of sentencing for such offences, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation of the offender, as well as the need to provide restitution to the victim. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court weighed the defendant's criminal history, the circumstances of the offence, and the impact of the crime on the victim.

After considering the legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, the court found that concurrent sentences of probation and imprisonment were permissible under the relevant legislation. The court also held that the defendant should be ordered to pay compensation to the victim for the stolen property. The court ultimately sentenced Hughes to a period of imprisonment, to be served concurrently with a period of probation, and ordered him to pay compensation to the victim.

Orders