Hazell v The Queen - [2015] NSWCCA 26

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hazell v R [2015] NSWCCA 26
Hearing dates: 23 February 2015
Decision date: 11 March 2015
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Harrison J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [25]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against sentence – mental health and intellectual issues – substance and alcohol abuse – sentences imposed upon the applicant were not unreasonable or plainly unjust – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194, (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Anthony Hazell (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Corish (Applicant)
K McKay (Respondent)
Solicitors:
M Bowe (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/4254
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Date of Decision:

17 December 2013

Before:

Blanch J

File Number(s):

2013/4254

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Harrison J.
HARRISON J: The applicant was sentenced by his Honour Justice Blanch in the District Court of New South Wales on 17 December 2013 as follows:

On a count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to a fixed term of imprisonment of 2 years commencing on 5 January 2013 and expiring on 4 January 2015. This is an offence contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.

On a count of aggravated detain for advantage to a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 5 January 2013 and expiring on 4 January 2017 with an additional term of 2 years expiring on 4 January 2019. This is an offence contrary to s 86(2)(b) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.

On a count of reckless wounding to a fixed term of imprisonment of 3 years commencing on 5 January 2013 expiring on 4 January 2016. This is an offence contrary to s 35(4) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 3 years.

The applicant was therefore sentenced to a total sentence of 6 years imprisonment commencing on 5 January 2013 and expiring on 4 January 2019, with a total non-parole period of 4 years expiring on 4 January 2017.
All offences occurred on 5 January 2013 and the applicant has been in custody since his arrest on that day. He pleaded guilty to all three offences in circumstances attracting a 25 percent discount. The applicant contends that the sentences imposed were attended by error and liable to be set aside as manifestly excessive. He seeks leave to appeal and has raised three grounds of appeal as follows:

In considering the applicant’s mental health issues, his Honour erred in failing to take into account:

The causal link between the applicant’s mental health issues…

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 Hazell v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hazell v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 26
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 26
Decision Date: 11 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Hazell, appealed against sentences imposed upon him by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The sentences were for his involvement in an aggravated burglary and the unlawful use of a motor vehicle. Hazell's appeal was based on the grounds of his mental health and intellectual issues, as well as his history of substance and alcohol abuse, which he argued should have resulted in a more lenient sentence. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, the highest court in Victoria.

The court had to determine whether the sentences imposed were unreasonable or plainly unjust, considering the mitigating factors presented by Hazell. The primary legal issue was whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered the impact of Hazell's mental health and substance abuse issues on his culpability and sentencing. The court also had to assess whether the totality of the sentences was disproportionate given the mitigating factors.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered Hazell's mental health and substance abuse issues. The court concluded that the sentences were not unreasonable or plainly unjust, as they appropriately balanced the seriousness of the offences with the mitigating factors. The court emphasised the need for sentences to reflect both the culpability of the offender and the need for general deterrence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders