Legal Research
Cases
Haines v R

Haines v R

Case [2012] NSWCCA 238 21 November 2012

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Silas Gordon Haines v R [2012] NSWCCA 238
Hearing dates: 26 October 2012
Decision date: 21 November 2012
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
Bellew J at [2]
Barr AJ at [66]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted;
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - forced entry into residential premises followed by multiple offences of robbery and aggravated sexual assault - one episode of offending - offences committed whilst applicant on parole for previous offence of sexual assault - whether overall sentence of imprisonment for 25 years with a non-parole period of 18 years was unreasonable or plainly unjust - whether sentence accumulated to an excessive degree - whether period of imprisonment amounted to a crushing sentence - need for protection of the community
Cases Cited: R v Gorman [2002] NSWCCA 516; (2002) 137 A Crim R 326
R v Haines [2004] NSWCCA 294
R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Silas Gordon Haines - Applicant
Crown - Respondent
Representation: T Gartelmann - Applicant
T Smith - Crown
Legal Aid New South Wales - Applicant
S Kavanagh,Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) - Crown

File Number(s): 2009/11348
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2010-05-14 00:00:00

Before:

Charteris DCJ

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Bellew J.

BELLEW J: On 31 March 2010 the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to a total of 16 separate offences arising out of an incident which occurred in the early hours of 2 November 2008. Those offences, and the sentences imposed at first instance in respect of each of them, were as follows:

Count

Offence

Term / non-parole period

Count 9

Aggravated enter dwelling - house with intent

5 years 6 months / 3 years 6 months

Count 10

Specially aggravated detain for advantage

7 years / 4 years 6 months

Count 16

Robbery in company

6 years / 4 years

Count 11

Robbery in company

6 years / 4 years

Count 12

Robbery in company

6 years / 4 years

Count 13

Robbery in company

6 years / 4 years

Count 1

Aggravated sexual assault

8 years / 5 years 4 months

Count 7

Indecent assault

1 year 6 months (fixed term)

Count 8

Indecent assault

1 year 6 months (fixed term)

Count 2

Aggravated sexual assault

10 years / 6 years 6 months

Count 3

Aggravated sexual assault

10 years/ 6 years 6 months

Count 5

Aggravated sexual assault in company

12 years / 8 years

Count 6

Aggravated sexual assault in company

12 years / 8 years

Count 14

Aggravated sexual assault

8 years / 5 years 4 months

Count 15

Aggravated sexual assault

10 years/ 6 years 6 months

Count 4

Aggravated sexual assault in company

15 years…

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 [2012] NSWCCA 238
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 238
Decision Date: 21 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haines v R was heard by the High Court of Australia, where the applicant, Haines, appealed against the sentence imposed on him by the lower court. Haines had been convicted of multiple offences, including forced entry into a residential premise, robbery, and aggravated sexual assault. These offences were committed while Haines was on parole for a previous sexual assault offence. The appeal focused on the overall sentence of imprisonment for 25 years with a non-parole period of 18 years, which Haines argued was unreasonable or plainly unjust. He contended that the sentence amounted to an excessive degree and that the period of imprisonment was crushing. The appeal sought to determine whether the sentence was disproportionate in light of the need to protect the community.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including whether the overall sentence imposed on Haines was unreasonable or plainly unjust. This involved assessing whether the sentence accumulated to an excessive degree and whether the period of imprisonment amounted to a crushing sentence. The court also had to weigh the need for protection of the community against the principle of proportionality in sentencing. Additionally, the court needed to examine whether the sentence imposed was consistent with the principles of sentencing as established in previous case law.

In its decision, the High Court of Australia found that the sentence imposed on Haines was not unreasonable or plainly unjust. The court held that the cumulative effect of the offences, particularly the aggravated sexual assault committed while on parole, justified the severity of the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the community from the risk posed by Haines and considered the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and did not amount to a crushing sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the lower court remained in effect. This decision affirmed the lower court's assessment of the gravity of the offences and the need for a substantial period of imprisonment to protect the community.

Orders