William Hladik v The Queen - [2015] VSCA 149

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0225

WILLIAM HLADIK	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	ASHLEY, REDLICH and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 May 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 June 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 149
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Hladik (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Harbison, 19 September 2014)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16 (charge 1), production of child pornography (charge 2), possession of child pornography (charge 3) – Sentenced to TES of 6 years and 9 months with NPP of 4 years and 6 months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Appellant suffered from autism – Evidence from psychologists that appellant essentially had mental age of a child and limited insight into offending – Facts of case highly unusual – Sentences imposed on charges 1 and 2 manifestly excessive – Re-sentenced to TES of 5 years with NPP of 3 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P J Matthews	Dr Martine Marich & Associates
For the Crown	Mr D Trapnell QC	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ASHLEY JA
REDLICH JA

WEINBERG JA:

On 17 July 2014, the appellant (now aged 32) pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16, one charge of production of child pornography, and one charge of possession of child pornography. The first two charges concerned a young girl, aged either 8 or 9 at the time of the relevant offending.

Following a plea on 10 September 2014, the appellant was sentenced on 19 September 2014 as follows:

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16 [s 47A Crimes Act 1958] 25 years 5 years Base

2 Production of child pornography [s 68 Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 2 years 1 year

3 Possession of child pornography [s 70 Crimes Act 1958] 5 years 1 year 9 months

Total Effective Sentence: 6 years 9 months

Non-Parole Period: 4 years 6 months

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 492 days

6AAA Statement: TES 10 years, NPP 6 years

Other orders: Forensic sample, Disposal orders. Sex Offender Registration for life.

In February of this year, Redlich JA granted leave to appeal on the following grounds:

Ground 2: The sentence on charge 1 is manifestly excessive.
Ground 3:The sentence on charge 2 and/or the order for cumulation concerning that sentence is/are manifestly excessive.
Ground 4:The order for cumulation concerning the sentence for charge 3 is manifestly excessive.

His Honour refused leave to appeal in relation to ground 1, which read that the sentencing judge failed to take into account the risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on the appellant’s mental health. The appellant has not elected to review that refusal.

Background facts

The offences which gave rise to charges 1 and 2 were all committed between May 2012 and May 2013. It…

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 William Hladik v The Queen

Details

AGLC: William Hladik v The Queen [2015] VSCA 149
Case: [2015] VSCA 149
Decision Date: 15 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William Hladik appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of South Australia, challenging the length of the term of imprisonment and the non-parole period. The appellant was found guilty of persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16, production of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. The Supreme Court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of 6 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive given his young mental age and limited insight into his offending, which was due to his autism.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the appellant’s age and mental condition. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offending, the appellant's age and mental state, and whether the sentence was appropriate given these factors. It was also necessary to examine whether the sentence imposed for the first and second charges was excessive and warranted a reduction.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's age and mental state were significant mitigating factors, as he essentially had the mental age of a child and limited insight into his offending. The facts of the case were highly unusual, and the appellant's condition was a crucial consideration. The court found that the sentences for the first and second charges were manifestly excessive and should be reduced. After reconsidering the totality of the offending and the appellant's circumstances, the Court of Appeal re-sentenced him to a total effective sentence of 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and ordered a new sentence, which reflected the appellant's age and mental condition. The new sentence was a total effective sentence of 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years.

Orders