CCA 2006/15629; 2008/13980; 2008/13981; 2008/13982
COUNSEL:
Applicant: Ms L Wells SC Respondent: Ms M Cinque
SOLICITORS:
Applicant: Aboriginal Legal Service Respondent: S Kavanagh
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
Berman DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
18 December 2008
- 20 -
2006/15629 2008/13980 2008/13981 2008/13982
BEAZLEY JA RS HULME J LATHAM J
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Samuel HAMPTON v REGINA
Judgment
1 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Hulme J.
2 RS HULME J: On 18 December 2008, this Applicant for leave to appeal was sentenced by Berman SC DCJ to imprisonment for an effective term of 15 years, including a non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months for a series of offences of dishonesty. The principal ground of appeal is that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The offences for which sentences were imposed, or which were taken into account, their dates of commission, and the sentences imposed were:-
1
29/11/04
Aggravated break enter and steal
2 years FT from 9/12/07
2
21/12/05
Armed robbery of 7/11 store at Surry Hills in company
4 years FT from 9/12/08
3
8/8/07
Armed robbery of Lewisham service station [in company]
4 years FT from 9/12/09
4
8/8/07
Knowingly carried in a stolen conveyance APC 10J
Taken into account with offence 3
5
14/10/07
Armed robbery of Narwee 7/11 store
Taken into account with offence 8
6
14/10/07
Knowingly carried in a stolen conveyance BCF 67M
Taken into account with offence 8
7
15/10/07
Knowingly carried in a stolen conveyance BCF 67M
Taken into account with offence 8
8
15/10/07
Armed robbery of Concord KFC store
6 years FT from 9/12/11
9
15/10/07
Demanding property with menaces (x 4)
Taken into account with offence 8
10
16/12/07
Attempted armed robbery of Doncaster Hotel
Taken into account with offence 13
11
16/12/07
Knowingly carried in stolen conveyance XLN 415
Taken into account with offence 13
12
16/12/07
Knowingly carried in stolen conveyance XWG 899
Taken into account with offence 13
13
16/10/07
Armed robbery of Rose Bay Hotel
7 years imprisonment from 9/12/15, including NPP of 3 years and 3 months
14
16/10/07
Armed robbery (x 4) of Rose Bay Hotel patrons
Taken into account with offence 13
15
30/12/07
Armed robbery of Eastlakes TAB and Barbara Ebbink
4 years FT from 9/12/13
16
30/12/07
Knowingly carried in stolen conveyance JCE 093
Taken into account with offence 15
3 Although it has been convenient to number these offences 1 to 16, it is obvious that more than 16 individual offences were committed. The circumstances of the offences included the following:
Offence 1
4 The Applicant and 2 others broke into a flat at Waterloo. They ransacked…
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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hampton v R [2010] NSWCCA 278
Case
[2010] NSWCCA 278
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Samuel Hampton v Regina, the Court of Criminal Appeal was asked to decide whether the sentence of imprisonment for an effective term of 15 years, including a non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months, imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive. The appellant was convicted of multiple offences of dishonesty, including armed robbery, demanding property with menaces, and carrying in a stolen conveyance. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The Court considered several factors, including the statutory penalties for the offences, the guideline judgement in R v Henry, the sum of the sentences, and the degree of concurrency involved in the sentence. The Court also compared the sentence with other cases of multiple armed robberies and found that the sentence was not excessive, certainly not manifestly so. The Court emphasized that sentencing is not an exact science and that the differences in offending and sentences in various cases do not indicate that the effective sentence imposed in this case was manifestly excessive.