Hatfield v REGINA - [2011] NSWCCA 286

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: HATFIELD v REGINA [2011] NSWCCA 286
Hearing dates: Thursday 30 June 2011
Decision date: 21 December 2011
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
Hidden J at [2]
Hall J at [3]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal upheld. Applicant re-sentenced on the basis of a discount for the guilty pleas of 20% in lieu of 15%
Orders
1. Leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by the District Court on 28 August 2009 be granted.
2. The sentences imposed by the District Court be set aside
3. That the applicant be re-sentenced as follows:-
(a) In relation to the offence under s.25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, and taking into account the matters on the Form 1, the applicant be sentenced to a non-parole period of 9 years and 2 months to commence on 9 May 2005 and to expire on 8 July 2014 and a balance of term of 6 years and 6 months to expire on 8 January 2021.
(b) In respect of the offence of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of cocaine contrary to s.11.5(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 and with s.233B(1) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), the applicant to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of 22 years with a non-parole period of 11 years. The sentence is to commence on 9 May 2007 the non-parole period will expire on 8 May 2018. The total sentence will expire on 8 May 2029.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - discount for assistance - discount for early plea of guilty

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - defence of mental illness - whether sentencing Judge erred in only taking mental illness into account on the non-parole period - fresh evidence
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - delay between arrest and sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Binnie v R [2010] NSWCCA 14
Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195
R v Benetiz [2000] NSWCCA 21
R v Currie (NSWCCA, unreported, 25 February 1992)
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267
R v Letteri (NSWCCA, unreported, 18 March 1992)
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49
NSWLR 383
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
TC v R [2009] NSWCCA 296
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Shane Desmond HATFIELD
REGINA
Representation: C: L Crowley
A: G Nicholson QC
C: Commonwealth DPP
A: William Whitby

File Number(s): 2007/16147
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2009-08-28 00:00:00

Before:

Morgan DCJ

File Number(s):

2007/16147

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL : I agree with Hall J.

HIDDEN J : I agree with Hall J.

HALL J : The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him by the District Court at Sydney. The hearing took place on 30 April 2009…

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 Hatfield v REGINA

Details

AGLC: Hatfield v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 286
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 286
Decision Date: 21 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Hatfield, was convicted of various serious charges including murder and appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which is composed of three judges. Hatfield argued that the sentence was excessive and should have included a discount for his early plea of guilty and for his assistance to the police. Additionally, Hatfield contended that the sentencing judge had erred in only considering his mental illness in relation to the non-parole period and not in determining the overall sentence. Hatfield also claimed that there was an unjustifiable delay between his arrest and sentencing, which should have warranted a reduction in his sentence.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge had erred in not giving sufficient weight to Hatfield's early plea of guilty and his cooperation with the police when determining the discount for these factors. The court also examined whether the sentencing judge had appropriately considered Hatfield's mental illness when determining the overall sentence, rather than just the non-parole period. Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of whether there was an unjustifiable delay between Hatfield's arrest and sentencing that should have led to a reduction in his sentence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in his consideration of Hatfield's early plea of guilty and cooperation with the police. The court noted that the judge had considered these factors but determined that they did not warrant a significant discount. Regarding the mental illness, the court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately taken Hatfield's mental illness into account when determining the non-parole period, and it was not an error to limit this consideration to that aspect of the sentence. The court also found that there was no unjustifiable delay between Hatfield's arrest and sentencing that warranted a reduction in his sentence. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court dismissed Hatfield's appeal against sentence and upheld the original sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Orders