R v Hyland - [2008] VSCA 220

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 79 of 2007

THE QUEEN
	v
GABRIEL MARK HYLAND

---

JUDGES:	KELLAM, DODDS-STREETON JJA and HARGRAVE AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	30 October 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 October 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSCA 220

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Rape – Aggravated burglary – Rape of 80 year old woman in her own home – Sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for rape not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
Appellant	Mr T F Danos	Victoria Legal Aid
Respondent	Mr C Ryan SC	Solicitor for Office of Public Prosecutions

KELLAM JA:

On 23 March 2007 the appellant, Gabriel Hyland, having earlier pleaded guilty, was sentenced in the County Court as follows:

·Count 1    –    aggravated burglary           –         12 years’ imprisonment
·Count 2    –    rape  –         12 years’ imprisonment
·Count 3    –    theft  –         9 months’ imprisonment

The sentencing judge directed that two years of the sentence imposed on count 1 and three months of the sentence imposed on count 3 be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence imposed on count 2. The total effective sentence thus imposed was fourteen years and three months’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge fixed a period of 10 years’ imprisonment before the appellant was to be eligible to be released upon parole.

In this appeal, brought by leave, the appellant relies upon the following grounds:

1. The sentence was in all the circumstances manifestly excessive.
2.The learned sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the plea of guilty by the appellant.

The circumstances of the offences

The sentencing judge described the circumstances of the offending as follows:

Your victim [CJ] resided in Yarraville. [CJ] at the time was 80 years of age. Her neighbour [MR] became known to you on the day preceding these offences. That day, namely 9 August 2005 the neighbour [MR] who was then unknown to you called out to you asking for a cigarette. Your were in company with another unknown person who left and you repaired into [MR’s] unit and consumed alcohol. You stayed the night with her and the following morning 10 August 2005 went to the local shopping centre where you purchased liquor. You continued drinking at a hotel in Yarraville and conversed with [MR] about your respective general backgrounds, during the course of which she informed you that she had previous dealings with the CAT team and after learning a little about your previous history she declined to leave the hotel with you. You left and you went to [her] unit in Williamstown Road where you continued drinking. That afternoon, shortly before 3 o’clock [CJ] the victim returned home from her shopping and her hair appointment. She was home a short period when you rang her doorbell and informed her that her neighbour, your new acquaintance [MR] was not feeling well and that you wished to ring the CAT team [CJ] knew that [MR] had some mental health issues and unlocked 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 Hyland

Details

AGLC: R v Hyland [2008] VSCA 220
Case: [2008] VSCA 220
Decision Date: 30 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hyland involved a defendant convicted of the aggravated burglary of an 80-year-old woman's home and the subsequent rape of the victim. The defendant appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, which was 12 years' imprisonment for the rape. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence of 12 years' imprisonment for the rape was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the severity and circumstances of the crime, including the age of the victim and the fact that the offence occurred in the victim's own home.

The court examined the sentencing principles applicable to the case, focusing on the need to deter the defendant and others from committing similar offences. The court considered the high level of premeditation and the vulnerability of the victim. The defendant had no prior convictions, which could have been a mitigating factor, but the court found that the aggravating factors outweighed any potential for mitigation. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crime and did not constitute a manifestly excessive punishment. The court emphasised the importance of protecting elderly victims and deterring such heinous crimes.

In light of the above, the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal against sentence. The 12-year imprisonment term for the rape was upheld as appropriate and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. The court found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the circumstances and the appropriate punishment. The sentence would serve to both punish the defendant and deter others from committing similar offences against vulnerable victims.

Orders