Legal Research
Cases
Hancock v R

Hancock v R

Case [2012] NSWCCA 200 14 September 2012

Appeal

Sentencing

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Proportionality

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hancock v R [2012] NSWCCA 200
Hearing dates: 7 August 2012
Decision date: 14 September 2012
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
RA Hulme J at [2]
Schmidt J at [3]
Decision:
Leave to appeal be granted but the appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - appeal against sentence - whether he sentencing process was miscarried - Federal offences and State offences - whether sentences imposed were unusually harsh and severe - whether sentencing judge erred in commencing his sentencing exercise at an excessive level - whether sentencing judge erred in failing to make sufficient allowance for assistance - whether sentencing judge erred in failing to maintain parity - whether sentencing judge erred in failing to take delay into account - whether sentencing judge erred in failing to observe the principle of totality - whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to find special circumstances with respect to the whole sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Caristo v R [2011] NSWCCA 7
Danial v R [2008] NSWCCA 15
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Green v R [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462
Johnson v R [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 205 ALR 346
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; 131 CLR 623
R v Ma [2004] NSWCCA 92; (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
R v MAK; R v MSK (2006) [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006)167 A Crim R 159
R v Suares-Mejia [2002] WASCA 187; (2002) 131 A Crim R 577
R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92; (2006) 172 A Crim R 151
R v TAE [2005] NSWCCA 29
R v Welden [2002] NSWCCA 475; (2002) 136 A Crim R 55
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Tony (aka Phillip) Hancock (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr MC Ramage QC (Applicant)
Mr CP O'Donnell (Respondent)
Solicitors:
LN Legal (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/46635
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2011-09-01 00:00:00

Before:

Solomon DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/46635

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL:I agree with Schmidt J.

RA HULME J: I agree with Schmidt J.

SCHMIDT J: The applicant admitted to being the head of a crime syndicate involved in the manufacture, distribution and use of false identity documents, such as drivers licences, Medicare cards, bank ATM cards and credit cards which generated earnings for him of over $100,000. He pleaded guilty in the Local Court to ten offences, nine of which related to the activities of the syndicate. The tenth offence was concerned with supplying 55.1 grams of methylamphetamine. This offence was unrelated to the activities of the syndicate.

The applicant was sentenced to an effective total sentence of 9 years 7…

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 Hancock v R

Details

AGLC: Hancock v R [2012] NSWCCA 200
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 200
Decision Date: 14 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hancock, was convicted of a number of Federal offences and State offences. Hancock appealed against his sentence, contending that the sentencing process was miscarried. The appeal centred on whether the sentences imposed were unusually harsh and severe and whether the sentencing judge erred in various respects, including commencing his sentencing exercise at an excessive level, failing to make sufficient allowance for assistance, failing to maintain parity, failing to take delay into account, and failing to observe the principle of totality and find special circumstances with respect to the whole sentence.

The court examined the principles of sentencing and the factors that should be considered in determining an appropriate sentence. The court assessed whether the sentences imposed were excessive in light of the principles of sentencing and whether the sentencing judge erred in the way he approached the sentencing exercise. The court also considered whether the sentencing judge failed to make sufficient allowance for assistance and whether he erred in failing to maintain parity and take delay into account. The court examined whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to observe the principle of totality and find special circumstances with respect to the whole sentence.

The court found that the sentencing process was not miscarried. The court held that the sentences imposed were not unusually harsh and severe. The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in commencing his sentencing exercise at an excessive level, nor did he err in failing to make sufficient allowance for assistance, maintain parity, take delay into account, or observe the principle of totality and find special circumstances with respect to the whole sentence. The appeal was dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.

Orders