R v Hyatt

Case [2011] QCA 55

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hyatt [2011] QCA 55

PARTIES:

R
v
HYATT, Martin Leigh
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 261 of 2010
DC No 223 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

29 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 March 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret Wilson AJA, Ann Lyons and Martin JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to a number of charges relating to unlawful use of a motor vehicle, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, stealing, wilful damage, burglary, commission of an indictable offence, entering premises, assault and escaping from lawful custody – where the applicant was sentenced to six and a half years with parole eligibility date set at three years of that sentence – where sentencing judge took into account applicant’s plea of guilty and apologies to officers who had been subject of his attack in the Magistrates Court – where sentencing judge took into account recidivist offending of applicant- whether setting the parole eligibility date at the three year mark made the sentence excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 10, s 13

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited
Bawden v ACI Operations P/L [2003] QCA 293, cited
Camden & Anor v McKenzie & Ors [2008] 1 Qd R 39; [2007] QCA 136, cited
Crystal Dawn Pty Ltd & Taylor v Redruth Pty Ltd [1998] QCA 373, cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
R v Corrigan [1994] 2 Qd R 415; [1993] QCA 417, cited
R v Doraho [2011] QCA 29, considered
R v Finch [2009] QCA 276, cited
R v Hantzisavvas [1981] Qd R 74, cited
R v Kitson [2008] QCA 86, cited
R v Melville [2009] QCA 108, cited
R v Norton [2007] QCA 320,cited
R v Ungvari [2010] QCA 134, cited

COUNSEL:

J McInnes for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

[1]      MARGARET WILSON AJA:  I have read the reasons for judgment of Martin J, and adopt his account of the relevant facts and the sentences imposed.

[2]      The learned sentencing judge commented on the applicant’s antecedents and the seriousness of his offending behaviour, and then said –

"I take into account your plea of guilty to all of these offences at an early date, in so far as the ex officio indictment is concerned particularly, your cooperation with the administration of justice to that extent, what has been tendered to the Court on your behalf, although your apologies for…

Continue reading R v Hyatt

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hyatt [2011] QCA 55
Case
[2011] QCA 55
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Hyatt, appealed against his sentence following a guilty plea to various charges including unlawful use of a motor vehicle, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, stealing, wilful damage, burglary, commission of an indictable offence, entering premises, assault, and escaping from lawful custody. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of six and a half years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date set at three years. In arriving at this sentence, the judge considered the applicant’s guilty plea, his apologies to the officers he had attacked, and his history of reoffending. The applicant argued that the setting of the parole eligibility date at three years rendered the sentence excessive.

The central issue for the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in setting the parole eligibility date, resulting in a sentence that was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court examined whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offending, and whether the parole eligibility date played a significant role in determining the overall length of the sentence. The applicant’s argument was that the parole eligibility date should not have been set until the applicant had demonstrated rehabilitation, as it would otherwise result in a sentence that was excessively lenient given the seriousness of the offences committed.

The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The sentencing judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors of the applicant’s guilty plea and apologies, as well as the aggravating factor of the applicant’s history of reoffending. The setting of the parole eligibility date at three years did not render the sentence excessive, as it allowed for the possibility of early release based on the applicant’s conduct and rehabilitation efforts. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion appropriately and that the sentence was proportionate to the offending.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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.