Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- R v HAC[2006] QCA 460
- Add to List
R v HAC[2006] QCA 460
R v HAC[2006] QCA 460
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | DC No 645 of 2005 |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Sentence Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 10 November 2006 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 27 October 2006 |
JUDGES: | Williams, Jerrard and Holmes JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made |
ORDER: | 1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is allowed |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – sentence required reconsideration – sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for torture, five years for rape and two years for assault – whether torture sentence is manifestly excessive R v B; ex part A-G [2000] QCA 110; CA No 379 of 1999, 4 April 2000, considered R v Rankmore; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 492; CA Nos 223 of 2002, 285 of 2002, 288 of 2002, 15 November 2002, considered |
COUNSEL: | G Long for the applicant/appellant M J Copley for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent |
[1] Williams ja: I agree with the sentence proposed by Jerrard JA in his reasons, and I also agree with his reasoning.
[2] JERRARD JA: On 11 August 2006 this Court dismissed an appeal by Mr HAC against his conviction for torture, and requested further submissions on an application for leave to appeal against his sentence. That was done because the conviction was upheld on the ground that what Mr HAC admitted doing to his former wife, and what his daughters described him doing to his former wife, understood in light of the intention he admitted, constituted an offence of torture on which the jury could properly convict him. That offence constituted by those matters admitted by Mr HAC or witnessed by his daughters was a little less horrific than the totality of the circumstances of the offence of torture described by the victim, Mr HAC’s wife. The reasons for judgment in the conviction appeal explain why the conviction was upheld on the more limited basis. The sentence originally imposed, 10 years imprisonment, therefore needs reconsideration, and Mr HAC has applied for leave to appeal the sentences imposed on him, of 10 years for torture, five years for rape, and two years for assault occasioning bodily harm. No argument was presented about the concurrent sentences for rape and assault, and those will stand.
[3] The relevant acts of Mr HAC resulting in the offence of torture were committed over a six month period in the second half of 2002. Those acts included – accepting the list submitted by his counsel –
● insisting that his wife eat chillies and chilli powder when Mr HAC considered she was telling lies (by denying she had an affair which he believed she had had, when separated earlier in their marriage);
● on one occasion, after she had vomited when forced to each chillies, making her eat the vomit;
● forcing her to eat chillies or powder from a glass jar, which broke, resulting in her cutting her tongue;
● insisting that she sleep outside the house, and without access to amenities such as a toilet;
● hitting and kicking her, including hitting her with a wooden slat;
● spitting on her, including in the face;
● hosing her;
● twisting her arm when it was in a plaster cast after being broken, and pouring beer into the cast;
● insisting that the children refer to her by demeaning names such as “slut”, “whore”, “moll”, and not “mother”, or “mum”, and insisting the children not show affection for her;
● pointing an unloaded rifle at her on one occasion;
● repeatedly making her search in hot weather for a hose nozzle in a paddock when wearing Wellingtons and a jumper;
● frightening her by riding a motorcycle at her, threatening to kill her; and
● generally treating her in a humiliating and abusive manner, including attempting to persuade her to engage in a sexual act with a dog.
[4] Those were the clearly established acts and conduct by which, over a six month period, Mr HAC deliberately inflicted serious physical and psychological pain on his wife, with an overall goal of humiliating her. Her victim impact statement included the description that:
“When I tell counsellors now what I have experienced, it often feels like it happened to another person. It sounds unimaginable even to me. But that really was my life, and I believed him when he said he loved me.”