Legal Research
Cases
Hampton v R

Hampton v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 131 18 July 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hampton v R [2014] NSWCCA 131
Hearing dates: 16 June 2014
Decision date: 18 July 2014
Before: Gleeson JA
Johnson J
Price J
Garling J
Bellew J
Decision:
1.Leave to appeal is granted
2.The appeal is dismissed

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Where applicant sentenced for offences of robbery in company and steal from person - Where applicant had spent a period of 2 months in custody bail refused in respect of offences for which he was discharged at committal - Where such period unrelated to offending for which he was to be sentenced - Relevance of that issue on sentence - Whether previous line of authority wrong and should not be followed
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Offences of robbery in company and steal from person - victims followed by applicant on a bus then assaulted and robbed - Need for general deterrence - Sentence not manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 87 ALJR 1022
Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Huntingdon v R [2007] NSWCCA 196
Jimmy v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 60
Kerr v R [2008] NSWCCA 201
R v Arnold [1993] 30 NSWLR 73
R v Baartman (NSWSC, Dunford J, 18 December 1988, unreported)
R v Chung (NSWCCA, 9 March 1994, unreported)
R v David (NSWCCA, 20 April 1995, unreported)
R v Evans (NSWCCA, 21 May 1992, unreported)
R v Giam (No. 2) [1999] NSWCCA 378
R v Hampton [2004] NSWSC 1215
R v Hudd (NSWCCA, 5 December 1995, unreported)
R v Johns [1978] 2 NSWLR 259
R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49; 77 NSWLR 7
R v Karageorge [1999] NSWCCA 213
R v Kelly [2005] NSWCCA 280; 155 A Crim R 499
R v Mai (1992) 26 NSWLR 371
R v Niass (NSWCCA, 16 November 1988 unreported)
R v NZ [2005] NSWCCA 278; 63 NSWLR 628
R v Rozynski [2001] NSWCCA 257
R v Pham [2005] NSWCCA 94
R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88
R v Thompson [2005] NSWCCA 340; 156 A Crim R 467
R v Tuuta [2014] NSWCCA 40
R v Webster and Jones (NSWCCA, 3 August 1992, unreported)
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; 223 A Crim R 460
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nicholas Allan Hampton - Applicant
Regina - Respondent
Representation: Counsel:
P Wass SC - Applicant
N Adams SC - Crown
Solicitors:
Legal Aid New South Wales - Applicant
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent

File Number(s): 2012 / 375697
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2013-06-07 00:00:00

Before:

Judge McClintock SC

Judgment

GLEESON JA: I agree with Johnson and Bellew JJ.

JOHNSON and BELLEW JJ: On 5 April 2013, Nicholas Allan Hampton ("the Applicant") pleaded guilty before the Local Court to two offences, namely:

(i) robbery in company contrary to s. 97(1) of 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 Hampton v R

Details

AGLC: Hampton v R [2014] NSWCCA 131
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 131
Decision Date: 18 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the applicant, Hampton, who was sentenced for offences of robbery in company and stealing from a person. The court was tasked with assessing the appropriate sentence for these crimes. The applicant had already spent a period of two months in custody prior to his sentencing, though this time was unrelated to the current offences for which he was to be sentenced. The case raised questions about the relevance of the time spent in custody on the sentencing process and whether the previous legal precedents on this issue should be reconsidered.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's prior custody time should influence his sentence for the current offences, and whether the established line of authority on this matter was correct. Additionally, the court needed to determine an appropriate sentence that would serve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, particularly considering the nature of the crimes which involved following and assaulting victims on a bus before robbing them.

The court found that the previous custody time was not relevant to the current sentencing and did not consider it appropriate to follow the prior legal precedents on this issue. Instead, the court focused on the severity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. It concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the crimes and the importance of deterrence. The court also noted the need for a sentence that would adequately address the seriousness of the offences, while also considering the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality.

The court upheld the sentence imposed on the applicant, finding it to be appropriate given the circumstances. It rejected the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive and emphasised the importance of deterrence in cases involving serious crimes. The final orders of the court were to maintain the sentence as imposed by the lower court, with no further modifications or reductions.

Orders