R v Hurst - [2014] QCA 168

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hurst [2014] QCA 168

PARTIES:

R
v
HURST, Dean
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 6 of 2014
DC No 363 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 June 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – where the applicant was convicted on his own pleas of guilty of one count producing a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) and one count possessing a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) – where the applicant and Hollingworth had been charged with the same offences and both pleaded guilty – where on count 1, the applicant was imprisoned for three years and four months, with parole eligibility after four months – where on count 2, the applicant was imprisoned for four months, with parole eligibility after four months – where on count 1, Hollingworth was imprisoned for two years, with a parole release date after six months – where on count 2, Hollingworth was imprisoned for nine months, with a parole release date after six months – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to the principle of parity when determining the applicant’s sentence – where there was disparity between the co-offenders with regard to their culpability, criminal history, and personal circumstances, including personal safety in prison, reason for turning to drugs, and rehabilitation efforts – whether the sentencing judge erred

Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49, considered
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, considered

COUNSEL:

C Reid for the applicant
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Morrison JA's reasons for refusing this application for leave to appeal against sentence.

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Morrison JA and the order proposed by his Honour.

MORRISON JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on him on 19 December 2013. He entered a guilty plea to two offences: count 1 – producing a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine); and count 2 – possessing a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine).

The applicant and one Hollingworth had each been charged with the same offences. Each of them pleaded guilty on 6 November 2013. The sentencing proceedings commenced on 21 November 2013 where there was a disparity between the position of the applicant and that of Hollingworth. The applicant accepted the facts agreed in a schedule tendered to the court, but Hollingworth did not. As a consequence Hollingworth gave evidence as to the disputed facts, and was cross-examined.

On…

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 Hurst

Details

AGLC: R v Hurst [2014] QCA 168
Case: [2014] QCA 168
Decision Date: 25 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant was convicted on his own pleas of guilty of producing and possessing methylamphetamine. He appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently consider the principle of parity in comparison to his co-offender, Hollingworth, who was also convicted of the same offences. The applicant claimed that there was a significant disparity in culpability, criminal history, and personal circumstances between him and Hollingworth, which warranted a more lenient sentence.

The primary legal issue in the appeal was whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the principle of parity. The applicant submitted that the disparity in the sentences, considering the factors mentioned, was unjust and constituted an error in the sentencing process. The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge appropriately balanced the principle of parity against the other relevant sentencing considerations.

The court considered the submissions made by the applicant and examined the sentencing remarks to assess whether the principle of parity was adequately addressed. The court found that the sentencing judge did take into account the principle of parity and considered the relevant factors, including the differences in culpability, criminal history, and personal circumstances. The court concluded that the disparity in the sentences was justified based on the individual circumstances of each offender and the overall sentencing principles. The court found no error in the sentencing process and dismissed the appeal.

The court's decision was that the application for appeal against the sentence was refused. The sentences imposed on the applicant were upheld as appropriate and in line with the relevant sentencing principles.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Hurst [2014] QCA 168
PARTIES:	R v HURST, Dean (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 6 of 2014 DC No 363 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	25 July 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 June 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and Morrison JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – where the applicant was convicted on his own pleas of guilty of one count producing a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) and one count possessing a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) – where the applicant and Hollingworth had been charged with the same offences and both pleaded guilty – where on count 1, the applicant was imprisoned for three years and four months, with parole eligibility after four months – where on count 2, the applicant was imprisoned for four months, with parole eligibility after four months – where on count 1, Hollingworth was imprisoned for two years, with a parole release date after six months – where on count 2, Hollingworth was imprisoned for nine months, with a parole release date after six months – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to the principle of parity when determining the applicant’s sentence – where there was disparity between the co-offenders with regard to their culpability, criminal history, and personal circumstances, including personal safety in prison, reason for turning to drugs, and rehabilitation efforts – whether the sentencing judge erred Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49, considered Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, considered
COUNSEL:	C Reid for the applicant B J Merrin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) appeared for the respondent