R v. Wockner & Hodge - [2007] QCA 392

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wockner & Hodges [2007] QCA 392

PARTIES:

R
v
WOCKNER, Quenten Philip
(applicant)

R
v
HODGES, Ryan William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 246 of 2007
CA No 278 of 2007
DC No 327 of 2007
DC No 400 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

16 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 November 2007

JUDGES:

Williams, Keane and Muir JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. In CA No 246 of 2007, application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
2. In CA No 278 of 2007, application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where Hodges pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery in company with violence and other offences – where Hodges sentenced to four years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after 16 months – where Wockner pleaded guilty to three counts of armed robbery in company with personal violence and one count of entering premises and stealing – where Wockner sentenced to four years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after 15 months – where both applicants ordered to pay $597.50 by way of compensation within 12 months – where Wockner was the younger of the offenders but had a more extensive criminal history – where Hodges had been the more active offender – whether sentences manifestly excessive – whether leave should be granted

R v Briody[2002] QCA 364; CA No 135 of 2002, 17 September 2002, considered
R v Bush[1996] QCA 172; CA No 71 of 1996, 17 May 1996, considered
R v Houldsworth & Crossman[1999] QCA 322; CA Nos 150 & 156 of 1999, 20 August 1999, considered
R v Law[2001] QCA 208; CA No 230 of 2000, 31 May 2001, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant, Wockner, appeared on his own behalf
P Nolan for the applicant Hodges
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant, Wockner, appeared on his own behalf
Stacks Gray Lawyers on behalf of the applicant Hodges
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The applicants, Wockner and Hodges, were each convicted on 24 September 2007 of a number of serious offences and each seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed.

Hodges pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery in company with personal violence, one count of burglary, one count of entering premises and stealing, two counts of stealing, one count of possessing a dangerous drug, and one count of possessing a prohibited substance. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment for the offences of armed robbery in company with personal violence,…

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. Wockner & Hodge

Details

AGLC: R v Wockner & Hodges [2007] QCA 392
Case: [2007] QCA 392
Decision Date: 16 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v. Wockner & Hodge involved two individuals, Wockner and Hodge, who had been convicted of various criminal offences. Hodge pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery in company with violence, as well as other associated charges, and was sentenced to four years imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole eligibility after 16 months. Wockner, on the other hand, pleaded guilty to three counts of armed robbery in company with personal violence and one count of entering premises and stealing. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole eligibility after 15 months. Both applicants were ordered to pay compensation of $597.50 within 12 months. The applicants sought leave to appeal against their respective sentences, arguing that they were manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed on the applicants were manifestly excessive, warranting an appeal against sentence. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the applicants' backgrounds and criminal histories. Additionally, the court needed to determine if leave to appeal should be granted, as it is not automatically provided in such cases.

In assessing the sentences, the court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. It considered the seriousness of the offences, the applicants' roles in the crimes, and their respective criminal histories. The court held that the sentences reflected the gravity of the offences and took into account the need for deterrence and denunciation. Furthermore, the court noted that both applicants had been given recommendations for parole eligibility after a relatively short period, which provided them with an opportunity for early release. Based on these factors, the court concluded that the sentences were appropriate and did not warrant an appeal.

Consequently, the court refused the applications for leave to appeal against sentence in both cases. The applicants' arguments that their sentences were manifestly excessive were not accepted, and the original sentences were upheld. The court's decision demonstrates the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate punishment for criminal offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In CA No 246 of 2007, application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

2. In CA No 278 of 2007, application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Wockner & Hodges [2007] QCA 392
PARTIES:	R v WOCKNER, Quenten Philip (applicant) R v HODGES, Ryan William (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 246 of 2007 CA No 278 of 2007 DC No 327 of 2007 DC No 400 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	16 November 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 November 2007
JUDGES:	Williams, Keane and Muir JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. In CA No 246 of 2007, application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused 2. In CA No 278 of 2007, application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where Hodges pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery in company with violence and other offences – where Hodges sentenced to four years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after 16 months – where Wockner pleaded guilty to three counts of armed robbery in company with personal violence and one count of entering premises and stealing – where Wockner sentenced to four years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after 15 months – where both applicants ordered to pay $597.50 by way of compensation within 12 months – where Wockner was the younger of the offenders but had a more extensive criminal history – where Hodges had been the more active offender – whether sentences manifestly excessive – whether leave should be granted R v Briody[2002] QCA 364; CA No 135 of 2002, 17 September 2002, considered R v Bush[1996] QCA 172; CA No 71 of 1996, 17 May 1996, considered R v Houldsworth & Crossman[1999] QCA 322; CA Nos 150 & 156 of 1999, 20 August 1999, considered R v Law[2001] QCA 208; CA No 230 of 2000, 31 May 2001, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant, Wockner, appeared on his own behalf P Nolan for the applicant Hodges M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant, Wockner, appeared on his own behalf Stacks Gray Lawyers on behalf of the applicant Hodges Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent