R v Hutchinson - [2010] QCA 22

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hutchinson [2010] QCA 22

PARTIES:

R
v
HUTCHINSON, Renold Winston
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 63 of 2009
DC No 144 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2010

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Keane JA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.Appeal against conviction dismissed

2.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 applicant convicted on guilty plea of one count of rape – where complainant was 18 years old and residing in the applicant's house at the time of the rape – where applicant sentenced to seven years imprisonment with parole eligibility after one third of the sentence had been served in custody – whether sentence manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where applicant filed for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction on the ground that fresh evidence has become available since trial – where applicant was of sound mind – where applicant entered a guilty plea in the exercise of a free choice by him – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred in acting on the applicant's plea of guilty

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, followed
R v Carkeet [2009] 1 Qd R 190; [2008] QCA 143, distinguished

COUNSEL:

N P Hiscox for the applicant
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA. I agree with the orders proposed by His Honour and with his reasons.

KEANE JA: On 18 August 2008 the applicant was convicted on his own plea of one count of rape. He was sentenced on 20 February 2009. On that occasion he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with parole eligibility on 19 June 2011, ie after one-third of the sentence had been served in custody.

On 20 March 2009 the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive. The form which was filed by the applicant at that time indicated an intention to appeal against his conviction but no grounds were advanced in support of that appeal.

On 26 October 2009 the applicant filed an application for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction on the ground that fresh evidence has become available since his trial and which, it is said, shows that the complainant has admitted to witnesses that she was not raped by the…

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 Hutchinson

Details

AGLC: R v Hutchinson [2010] QCA 22
Case: [2010] QCA 22
Decision Date: 19 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Hutchinson, the applicant, who had entered a guilty plea to one count of rape, appealed against both the sentence and the conviction. The complainant was 18 years old and resided in the applicant's house at the time of the offence. The applicant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving one third of the sentence. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. In addition, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against the conviction, citing fresh evidence and claiming that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate and whether there was a miscarriage of justice in acting on the applicant's plea of guilty. The court considered the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding it, and the sentencing principles applicable. It also examined the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal against the conviction and whether the applicant had acted with due diligence.

Upon reviewing the arguments presented, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that there was no miscarriage of justice in acting on the applicant's plea of guilty. The court found that the applicant had acted with due diligence in filing the appeal against the conviction, but nevertheless dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal. The court also refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the conviction and to refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Appeal against conviction dismissed

2.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 Hutchinson [2010] QCA 22
PARTIES:	R v HUTCHINSON, Renold Winston (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 63 of 2009 DC No 144 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 February 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 February 2010
JUDGES:	Chief Justice and Keane JA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1.Appeal against conviction dismissed 2.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 applicant convicted on guilty plea of one count of rape – where complainant was 18 years old and residing in the applicant's house at the time of the rape – where applicant sentenced to seven years imprisonment with parole eligibility after one third of the sentence had been served in custody – whether sentence manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where applicant filed for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction on the ground that fresh evidence has become available since trial – where applicant was of sound mind – where applicant entered a guilty plea in the exercise of a free choice by him – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred in acting on the applicant's plea of guilty Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, followed R v Carkeet [2009] 1 Qd R 190; [2008] QCA 143, distinguished
COUNSEL:	N P Hiscox for the applicant M J Copley SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent