Haines v R - [2008] NSWCCA 12

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: HAINES v R [2008] NSWCCA 12

HEARING DATE(S): 11 December 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 February 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Basten JA at 1; Barr J at 2; Adams J at 3

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. The appeal in respect of the sentence imposed on charge 1 is dismissed.
3. The appeal in respect of the sentence imposed on charge 2 is allowed so far as the non-parole period is concerned; the non-parole period is varied to a period of two years and six months, so that it commences on 5 October 2006 and expires on 4 April 2009.

CATCHWORDS: Sentence appeal - Drug Court referral - initial sentence - failure to adjust for accumulation - no practical effect - sentence should still be corrected.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s 112(2)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 s106D
Drug Court Act 1998 s18B

CASES CITED: R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58

PARTIES: Lloyd HAINES (Applicant)
REGINA (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/2942

COUNSEL: Ms C Loukas (Applicant)
Mr M Barr (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited (Applicant)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0573

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Goldring DCJ

2007/2942

BASTEN JA
BARR J
ADAMS J
21 FEBRUARY 2008

Lloyd HAINES v REGINA

Judgment

1 BASTEN JA: I agree with Adams J.

2 BARR J: I agree with Adams J.

3 ADAMS J:

Introduction

4 The applicant pleaded guilty on 31 January 2007 in the District Court to the following offences –

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes Act 1900,

5 Additionally, the applicant asked the Court to take into account on a Form 1 the offences of having in custody two small amounts of foreign currency suspected of having been unlawfully obtained, assaulting the police attempting to arrest him and resisting the police by struggling with a constable and running away.

6 The applicant was sentenced on 31 January as follows –

7 The learned sentencing judge said that he had taken into account the Form 1 offences but omitted to specify the charge in respect of which they were taken into account. His…

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 The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 12
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 12
Decision Date: 21 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Haines v R, the appellant, Haines, sought to appeal his sentence following a conviction for drug-related offences. The appeal centred on the contention that the trial judge had failed to adequately account for the accumulation of sentences, which led to an unjust outcome. The case was heard in the court of appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in failing to adjust the sentence for the accumulation of sentences. Specifically, the court had to determine if the failure to make this adjustment had any practical effect on the overall sentence and whether the sentence should be corrected accordingly. This involved an analysis of the principles governing sentence accumulation and the impact, if any, of the trial judge's oversight.

The court found that while the trial judge had indeed overlooked the need to adjust for the accumulation of sentences, this oversight did not have a practical effect on the sentence imposed. Despite this, the court held that the sentence should still be corrected to reflect the proper application of the law. The appeal was allowed on this basis, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for the imposition of a corrected sentence. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to legal principles in sentencing to ensure that sentences are both fair and legally sound.

Orders