Hall v Regina - [2007] NSWCCA 301

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Hall v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 301

FILE NUMBER(S):
2006/4750 (formerly 2006/2749)

HEARING DATE(S): 16 May 2007

JUDGMENT DATE: 13 November 2007

PARTIES:
Jason Daniel Hall (appellant)
Regina (respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL Hidden J Price J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/1007

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

COUNSEL:
Appellant in Person
P Barrett (Crown)

SOLICITORS:
Appellant unrepresented
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW:
application for leave to appeal against sentence
charges of robbery, steal from the person and other related charges
pleas of guilty
challenge to competence of representation in sentence proceedings
whether sentence is manifestly excessive
no question of principle

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 s94, s154A, s178BA, s112, s117, s188
Pawnbrokers and Second Hand Dealers Act 1996 s24
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s44(1)

CASES CITED:
R v Munro [2006] NSWCCA 350
Nudd v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 614
R v Cramp [2004] NSWCCA 264
Itaoui v R (2005) 158 A Crim R 233
R v Close (1993) 65 A Crim R 55

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2006/4570 (formerly 2006/2749)
McCLELLAN CJ at CL
HIDDEN J
PRICE J
Tuesday, 13 November 2007

Jason Daniel HALL v REGINA

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Hidden J.
HIDDEN J: The applicant, Jason Daniel Hall, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to the following twenty-seven charges:

twelve charges of stealing from the person, an offence under s94 of the Crimes Act which carries a maximum sentence of fourteen years imprisonment;
six charges of robbery, an offence under the same section and carrying the same maximum sentence;
four charges of taking and driving a conveyance (deemed larceny), an offence under s154A of the Act which carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment;
four charges of obtaining a benefit by deception, an offence under s178BA of the Act which also carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment;
one charge of break, enter and steal, an offence under s112 of the Act which carries a maximum sentence of fourteen years imprisonment.

He was committed for sentence in the District Court. There he adhered to his pleas of guilty, and asked the sentencing judge to take into account a further sixty-five offences on a Form 1. These were:

five further offences of stealing from the person;
a further offence of taking and driving a conveyance;
five offences of larceny (s117 of the Crimes Act, maximum sentence five years imprisonment);
three offences of receiving or disposing of stolen property (s188 of the Crimes Act, maximum sentence ten years imprisonment);
two offences of making or furnishing a false statement (s24 of the Pawnbrokers and Second Hand Dealers Act 1996, carrying only a fine);
forty-nine further offences of obtaining or attempting to obtain a benefit by deception.

Obviously, sentencing was a complex exercise but it is not necessary to set out the…

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 Hall v Regina

Details

AGLC: Hall v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 301
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 301
Decision Date: 13 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hall v Regina, the applicant, Hall, seeks leave to appeal against his sentences. He was unrepresented and provided written submissions, which he developed orally. Hall was found guilty of a number of offences including robbery, stealing from the person, and other related charges. The offences were committed against middle-aged to elderly women in and around shopping centre car parks in the areas of Rose Bay, Double Bay and the lower North Shore. Hall used a number of stolen cars, which gave rise to the charges of taking and using a conveyance.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether there was a challenge to the competence of representation in the sentence proceedings and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that there was no question of principle involved in the case. The applicant's argument that his representation was not competent was rejected as there was no evidence to support this claim. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed.

The court's reasoning was that the applicant had a lengthy criminal history and the offences committed were well planned and targeted vulnerable victims. The court also noted that the applicant had shown no remorse for his actions. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed and the applicant was to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

He seeks leave to appeal against those sentences. He was unrepresented and provided written submissions, which he developed orally.Facts Given the issues raised by the application, a bare outline of the facts of the offences will suffice. One of the charges of taking and driving a conveyance the subject of a committal charge was committed in August 2004. One of the offences of receiving on the Form 1 was committed in March 2005. All of the other offences, whether the subject of committal charges or on the Form 1, represent a sustained episode of criminality between 7 November and 4 December 2004. The charges of robbery and stealing from the person arose from a series of offences committed against middle-aged to elderly women in and around shopping centre car parks in the areas of Rose Bay, Double Bay and the lower North Shore. For these offences the applicant used a number of stolen cars, giving rise to the charges of taking and using a conveyance. He would drive past the victims while they were walking back to their cars with their purchases, sometimes in shopping trolleys. He would seize the victim’s handbag, either from her person or from the trolley, and drive off. Of these offences the learned sentencing judge observed in her remarks: …They were clearly well planned. The victims were apparently chosen because they were women, middle aged to elderly who would have handbags in plain view when attending to their shopping and when they were loading groceries or otherwise distracted. Those which were committed when the offender drove past, grabbed the bag, and sped off were attended with an element of danger both to the victim and the public.The agreed facts speak of the offender waiting in his car and watching for the appropriate time to drive past to steal the handbags. Some of these offences were committed on the same day when the offender returned to the same shopping centre to steal another bag. Some of the victims were elderly….Of course, regardless of the age of the victims, to have one’s bag stolen in the circumstances of these offences would be a most frightening and distressing experience. The victim of the offence of break, enter and steal was a woman whose handbag he had stolen. Her keys were in that bag, and he later used them to gain access to the car park of the units where she lived and steal her car. The numerous charges of obtaining or attempting to obtain a benefit by deception arose from his use of ATM cards in the handbags which he had stolen to withdraw money from the victims’ accounts, or to attempt to do so. There is no need to refer to the other offences on the Form 1. They were generally related to this pattern of criminality, and embraced conduct such as pawning items of jewellery stolen from the victims, representing them to be his own, or stealing petrol from a service station by filling a stolen car and leaving without paying for it. Subjective case The applicant was thirty-six years old at the time of the offences, and is now thirty-nine. He has a record of prior convictions between 1987 and 2003, comprising mainly offences of dishonesty, drug offences and driving offences. Most of his convictions were recorded between 1987 and 1995, but they include an entry in Queensland for armed robbery for which he was sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment. In 2002 he was dealt with at Fairfield Local Court for offences of assaulting and resisting police and a variety of offences of dishonesty and driving offences, for which he was sentenced to short terms of imprisonment. In the following year, he was sentenced at Muswellbrook Local Court to another short term of imprisonment for taking and driving a conveyance.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

CLELLAN CJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: CLELLAN CJ

Full text does not contain this section.