Legal Research
Cases
Haines v R

Haines v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 90 16 May 2016

Sentencing

Plea Bargaining

Mental Illness Defence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Haines v R [2016] NSWCCA 90
Hearing dates: 14 April 2016
Date of orders: 14 April 2016
Decision date: 16 May 2016
Before: Ward JA; Price J; Adamson J
Decision:
1.   Grant leave to appeal.
2.   The appeal is allowed.
3.   Quash the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge and in lieu of the orders made by the sentencing Judge impose the following orders:
(a)   Confirm the conviction.
(b)   Sentence the applicant to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 11 years 3 months commencing on 3 March 2001 and expiring on 2 June 2012 with a further term of 3 years 9 months commencing 3 June 2012 and expiring on 2 March 2016.
4.   As the sentence has expired the applicant is to be released forthwith.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – murder – where appellant pleaded guilty after psychiatrist withdrew opinion as to availability of mental illness defence – whether sentencing judge erred in finding plea not entered at earliest reasonable opportunity – exceptional case where reason for delay in entering guilty plea must be taken into account
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 29(1)(b)
Cases Cited: Atkinson v R [2014] NSWCCA 262
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; (2014) 252 CLR 601
Nguyen v R [2008] NSWCCA 280
R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; (2009) 195 A Crim R 1
R v Haines [2015] NSWSC 390
R v Nicholson [2010] NSWCCA 80
R v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310
R v Stambolis [2006] NSWCCA 56; (2006) 160 A Crim R 510
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Villalon v R [2015] NSWCCA 229
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Brenda Lee Haines (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Odgers SC (Applicant)
H Baker (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): CCA 2001/00002339
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Citation:

[2015] NSWSC 390

Date of Decision:

16 April 2015

Before:

RS Hulme AJ

File Number(s):

2001/00002339

Judgment

THE COURT: On 14 April 2016 this Court heard and determined an application by Ms Haines pursuant to s 5(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on her following her conviction for the murder of Haibo Wang. The Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, quashing the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge and imposing orders confirming the conviction and sentencing Ms Haines to a term of imprisonment that expired on 2 March 2016. Accordingly, Ms Haines was to be released forthwith. The Court reserved its reasons for granting leave and allowing the appeal. These are those reasons.

Background

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 Haines v R

Details

AGLC: Haines v R [2016] NSWCCA 90
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 90
Decision Date: 16 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Haines was convicted of murdering his wife and subsequently appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the plea of guilty was not entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity. This was influenced by the fact that the appellant had pleaded guilty after a psychiatrist who had initially opined on the availability of a mental illness defence withdrew their opinion. The court was tasked with determining whether this delay warranted the sentencing judge to consider the reason for the delay in entering the plea as part of the sentencing discretion.

The court acknowledged that the appellant had delayed entering his plea due to the psychiatrist's withdrawal of their opinion, which had initially suggested a potential mental illness defence. However, the court recognised that the delay did not necessarily equate to an abuse of process, as the appellant's decision to plead guilty was ultimately made promptly once the psychiatrist's opinion was withdrawn. The court further reasoned that the delay must be evaluated in the context of the appellant's decision to plead guilty, which demonstrated an acceptance of responsibility and facilitated a more streamlined judicial process. The court concluded that the sentencing judge was entitled to consider the delay in entering the plea but was not compelled to do so in the context of the appellant's overall conduct and acceptance of responsibility.

Consequently, the court found that the sentencing judge did not err in considering the delay in entering the plea as part of the sentencing discretion. The court held that the delay did not constitute an abuse of process and did not warrant a significant adjustment to the sentence imposed. The appeal was therefore dismissed, affirming the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court emphasised that while the delay in entering the plea was a factor to be considered, it was not determinative of the sentence and did not necessarily warrant a substantial reduction in the sentence.

Orders