Legal Research
Cases
Hanna v The Queen

Hanna v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 125 12 June 2020

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hanna v R [2020] NSWCCA 125
Hearing dates: 14 October 2019
Decision date: 12 June 2020
Before: Bell P at [1]
Simpson AJA at [9]
R A Hulme J at [98]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords:
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW), s 22(1) – plea of guilty – imposing a lesser penalty than would otherwise have been imposed – Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 267(2) and 268(1A) – jurisdictional limit of Local Court – whether sentence that would have been imposed but for reduction in sentence may exceed jurisdictional limit – similar issue considered in Park v R [2020] NSWCCA 90 – Drug Court of New South Wales exercising criminal jurisdiction of the Local Court pursuant to s 24(1) of the Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW)
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – aggregate sentence – indicated sentences – whether discrepancy between monetary value of goods stolen and threshold for an offence to be heard summarily reduces objective seriousness – disparities in indicated sentences having regard to monetary value of goods stolen
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 112, 114, 117, 188, 195, 253, 254
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 9, 10A, 22, 53A, 53B, 98, 99
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5AA, 5AF
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), Ch 5, ss 3, 6, 7, 267, 268, Sch 1, Table 1, Table 2
Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW), ss 4, 7A, 12, 24
Cases Cited: Berryman v R [2017] NSWCCA 297
Elsaj v R [2017] NSWCCA 124
Park v R [2020] NSWCCA 90
PG v R [2017] NSWCCA 179; (2017) 268 A Crim R 61
R v Grbin [2004] NSWCCA 220
R v Shenton [2003] NSWCCA 346
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Togias [2001] NSWCCA 522; (2001) 127 A Crim R 23
Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Steven Hanna (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
In person (Appellant)
D Patch (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Not applicable (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/235773
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Drug Court

Date of Decision:

29 June 2018

Before:

Judge Barnett

File Number(s):

2016/67

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 29 June 2018 the Drug Court of NSW, exercising the criminal jurisdiction of the Local Court, imposed on the appellant two aggregate sentences pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW) (“the Sentencing Procedure Act”) in relation to ten offences committed over a period from October 2015 to February 2018 to which the appellant had entered pleas of guilty. Two of the offences involved the breaking and entering of, respectively, a mosque and a car dealership in Parramatta. Another offence was committed whilst the appellant was in the mosque.

In…

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 Hanna v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hanna v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 125
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 125
Decision Date: 12 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hanna v The Queen came before the Drug Court of New South Wales, exercising the criminal jurisdiction of the Local Court. The defendant, Hanna, pleaded guilty to a charge under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and faced a penalty that would typically be imposed by the Local Court. The issue before the court was whether the court had the authority to impose a lesser penalty than would otherwise have been imposed, while considering the jurisdictional limits of the Local Court and the statutory provisions of the Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW) and the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

The legal issues revolved around the interpretation of sections 22(1), 267(2), and 268(1A) of the relevant Acts. The court needed to determine whether a sentence that would have been imposed but for a reduction in penalty could exceed the jurisdictional limit of the Local Court. The court also considered the objective seriousness of the offence and the discrepancies in indicated sentences based on the monetary value of goods stolen, in light of the principle established in Park v R [2020] NSWCCA 90.

The court found that the Local Court had the authority to impose a lesser penalty than would otherwise have been imposed, provided that the reduced sentence did not exceed the jurisdictional limit of the court. The court considered the monetary value of the goods stolen and the objective seriousness of the offence in determining the appropriate penalty. In light of the statutory provisions and the principle established in Park v R, the court concluded that the discrepancy in indicated sentences did not reduce the objective seriousness of the offence. The court ultimately imposed a sentence that was within the jurisdictional limit of the Local Court.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, along with a fine and a compensation order. The court emphasised the importance of considering the objective seriousness of the offence and the statutory provisions when imposing a sentence within the jurisdictional limit of the Local Court. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders