Legal Research
Cases
Hayward v R (Cth)

Hayward v R (Cth)

Case [2021] NSWCCA 63 9 April 2021

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Hayward v R (Cth) [2021] NSWCCA 63
Hearing dates: 2 December 2020
Date of orders: 9 April 2021
Decision date: 09 April 2021
Before: McCallum JA at [1];
Johnson J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [105].
Decision:
1. Extend time for the Applicant to seek leave to appeal against sentence to 3 September 2020.
2. Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
3. Allow the appeal and quash the sentences imposed at the Parramatta District Court on 20 June 2016 and corrected on 24 June 2016.
4. In their place, sentence the Applicant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of nine years and six months comprising a non-parole period of six years and four months commencing on 8 January 2015 and expiring on 7 May 2021 with a balance of term of three years and two months commencing on 8 May 2021 and expiring on 7 July 2024.
5. The earliest date upon which the Applicant will be eligible for release on parole is 8 May 2021.

Catchwords:
APPEAL – sentence – applicant convicted of offences of possessing and uttering counterfeit money and producing false documents – applicant sentenced prior to decision in Xiao v R – regard not had to utilitarian value of Applicant’s pleas of guilty – Xiao v R error demonstrated – consideration of factors relevant to sentence for counterfeiting and identity fraud offences – general and specific deterrence significant factors on sentence – applicant resentenced

Legislation Cited:
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth)
Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bae v R [2020] NSWCCA 35
Betka v R [2020] NSWCCA 197
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 4520; [2016] HCA 25
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339; [2002] HCA 6
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie (2017) 270 A Crim R 556; [2017] NSWCCA 301
DL v The Queen (2018) 265 CLR 215; [2018] HCA 32
Huang v R (2018) 332 FLR 158; [2018] NSWCCA 70
Johnston v R [2017] NSWCCA 53
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Khalid v R (2020) 102 NSWLR 160; [2020] NSWCCA 73
Parente v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 633; [2017] NSWCCA 284
R v Gittani [2002] NSWCCA 139
R v Institoris (2002) 129 A Crim R 458; [2002] NSWCCA 8
R v Rohde (1985) 17 A Crim R 166
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
Sabbah v R (Cth) (2020) 283 A Crim R 78; [2020] NSWCCA 89
Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260
Tyler v R; Chalmers v R (2007) 173 A Crim R 458; [2007] NSWCCA 247
Van Haltren v R (2008) 191 A Crim R 53; [2008] NSWCCA 274
Weber v R [2020] NSWCCA 103

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 Hayward v R (Cth)

Details

AGLC: Hayward v R (Cth) [2021] NSWCCA 63
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 63
Decision Date: 09 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hayward v R, the applicant was convicted of offences related to the possession and uttering of counterfeit money and the production of false documents. The matter was brought before the court for the purpose of appealing the sentence previously handed down. The applicant sought a resentencing in light of the decision in Xiao v R, which highlighted the importance of considering the utilitarian value of a guilty plea in sentencing matters.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant’s sentence could be reconsidered in light of Xiao v R, specifically focusing on whether the sentencing process failed to adequately account for the value of the applicant’s guilty pleas. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate factors to consider when sentencing for offences of counterfeiting and identity fraud, particularly in the context of general and specific deterrence.

The court found that the applicant’s sentence was indeed affected by the failure to properly consider the value of the guilty pleas, as per the principles elucidated in Xiao v R. The court acknowledged that general and specific deterrence were significant factors in sentencing for counterfeiting and identity fraud offences. Consequently, the court decided to resentence the applicant, taking into account the full range of relevant factors, including the utilitarian value of the guilty pleas.

The final orders of the court were to resentence the applicant in accordance with the principles outlined in the judgment, ensuring that all relevant factors, including the value of the guilty pleas and considerations of general and specific deterrence, were properly weighed.

Orders