R v Hutchinson

Case [2018] QCA 29


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hutchinson [2018] QCA 29

PARTIES:

R
v
HUTCHINSON, Michael Geoffrey
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 74 of 2017
SC No 83 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 31 March 2017 (North J)

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 September 2017

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Mullins J

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of fraud and not guilty to one count of murder at trial – where the applicant was acquitted of murder, but found guilty of manslaughter – where the victim was his wife – where the sentence for manslaughter was 15 years six months imprisonment to reflect the overall criminality for both offences – where the offence of manslaughter was recorded as a domestic violence offence – where the offence of manslaughter was committed before the commencement of s 9(10A) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the sentencing judge erred in applying s 9(10A) or whether the sentence was otherwise manifestly excessive

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14B, s 15A
Criminal Law (Domestic Violence) Amendment Act 2016 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 7, s 9, s 10
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 12A

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, considered
Rodway v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 515; [1990] HCA 19, considered
R v Baggott[2000] QCA 153, considered
R v Breeze (1999) 106 A Crim R 441; [1999] QCA 303, cited
R v Carlton [2010] 2 Qd R 340, [2009] QCA 241, followed
R v Harold[2011] QCA 99, considered
R v Koster (2012) 226 A Crim R 247; [2012] QCA 302, distinguished
R v Mason and Saunders [1998] 2 Qd R 186; [1997] QCA 421, cited
R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63; [2003] QCA 175, cited
R v Pham (2009) 197 A Crim R 246; [2009] QCA 242, followed
R v Truong [2000] 1 Qd R 663; [1999] QCA 21, followed
R v West[2011] QCA 76, considered

COUNSEL:

D R Kinsella for the applicant
J A Wooldridge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Mullins J and the order proposed by her Honour.

  2. MORRISON JA:  I agree with the reasons of Mullins J and the order her Honour proposes.

  3. MULLINS J: In March 2017 Mr Hutchinson was convicted after trial of the unlawful killing of his wife Mrs Hutchinson. There were two counts on the indictment. At the commencement of the trial Mr Hutchinson…

Continue reading R v Hutchinson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hutchinson [2018] QCA 29
Case
[2018] QCA 29
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Hutchinson, appealed against his sentence following his acquittal of murder and conviction for manslaughter of his wife. The sentence imposed was 15 years and six months imprisonment, which Hutchinson considered manifestly excessive. The court had to determine if the sentencing judge erred in applying section 9(10A) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) or if the sentence was otherwise excessive. The legal issue revolved around whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the overall criminality of both the manslaughter and the fraud charges, given that the manslaughter was also categorised as a domestic violence offence.

The court examined the principle of totality, which requires that the overall sentence should reflect the overall criminality of the offender's conduct. In this case, the court considered the sentencing judge’s approach in balancing the severity of the manslaughter offence with the applicant's plea of guilty to the fraud charge. The court noted that while the applicant's conduct in relation to the fraud was serious, the manslaughter offence carried significant moral blameworthiness, particularly given its domestic violence nature. The court held that the sentencing judge appropriately considered the totality principle in imposing a sentence that reflected the overall criminality. The court also found that there was no error in applying section 9(10A) as the offence occurred before the amendment took effect.

Consequently, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was therefore refused.

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.