Hill v The Queen - [2003] NSWCCA 16

CITATION: Hill v R [2003] NSWCCA 16 revised - 28/11/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 10/12/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 September 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Hulme J at 13; Hidden J at 83

DECISION: 1. Grant leave to appeal against sentence; ; 2. Allow the appeal against sentence; ; 3. Quash the sentence imposed on the Applicant by Ireland AJ on 2 November 2001; ; 4. Sentence the Applicant to imprisonment for 6 years, including a non-parole period of 4½ years, both such periods to commence on 25 May 2002.; On 28 November 2003 the Court corrected the order herein by substituting 25 May 2000 as the commencing date of the Applicant's imprisonment and non-parole periods.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: Evidence - Credibility - Satisfaction of burden of proof - Findings in aggravation of sentence - Parity

CASES CITED: M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487
Fox v Percy (2003) 77 ALJR 989
Beale v GIO of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
R v Wilkinson [1999] NSWCCA 248

PARTIES :
Paul Geoffrey Hill
v
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60739 of 2001

COUNSEL: Applicant: C B Craigie SC, C Loukas
Crown: E Wilkins

SOLICITORS: Applicant: Sydney Regional Aboriginal Corporation Legal Service
Crown: S E O'Connor

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70036 of 2001

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Ireland AJ

CCA 60739 of 2001

MEAGHER JA
HULME J
HIDDEN J
Tuesday, 23 September 2003

PAUL GEOFFREY HILL v REGINA

FACTS
The Applicant sought leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence of 8 years (with a non-parole period of 6 years) imposed on him by Ireland AJ on 2 November 2001. Charged with murder, he had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and the Crown accepted that plea. The victim was aged a little over 2 years. At the time of the victim’s death, the Applicant had been living with the mother of the victim (who also entered a plea of guilty to the manslaughter of the victim).

HELD

per

Hulme J (Hidden J agreeing), allowing the appeal:

1. The fact that the victim’s mother was an accessory to the victim’s death, the fact that she had much to gain by implicating the Applicant, and the fact that she had on many occasions lied about the events, all required that her evidence implicating the Applicant be scrutinised with great care. M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487; Fox v Percy (2003) 77 ALJR 989, referred to. [69 et seq.]

2. The victim’s mother’s credibility was so bad that Ireland AJ was not entitled to be persuaded by her beyond reasonable doubt. [75]

Meagher JA (

contra

The application before the Court was directed at attacking Ireland AJ’s finding that the Applicant had exercised undue influence on the victim’s mother, preventing her from providing medical assistance for the victim. This is what the victim’s mother said, and Ireland AJ, as a tribunal fact, believed her. It is of no relevance that she was a bad mother, that…

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 Hill v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hill v The Queen [2003] NSWCCA 16
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 16
Decision Date: 23 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hill v The Queen involved the appellant, Hill, who was convicted of two counts of murder. The decision was handed down by the High Court of Australia. The appeal was against the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had found Hill guilty of the murders of two individuals. The primary issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court's findings regarding the aggravating factors in the case were legally sound and whether they properly aligned with the principles of parity in sentencing.

The court examined whether the trial judge had correctly applied the legal standards when determining the aggravating factors that led to the imposition of a life sentence for each count of murder. The appellant argued that the findings of fact were not adequately supported by the evidence, and thus, the trial judge's assessment of the aggravating factors was flawed. The court considered the nature of the evidence presented, the credibility of the witnesses, and whether the trial judge's findings were reasonable in light of the entire body of evidence. Furthermore, the court explored whether the principle of parity, which requires consistency in the sentencing of similarly situated offenders, was appropriately applied in this case.

The High Court determined that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the aggravating factors, as the findings were not sufficiently supported by the evidence. The court held that the trial judge had placed undue emphasis on certain aspects of the evidence without adequate justification, leading to an unjustifiable increase in the severity of the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence, and that any aggravating factors identified must be directly linked to the evidence presented. The High Court quashed the sentences and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for resentencing, ensuring that the trial judge would properly consider the evidence and apply the principle of parity in the determination of an appropriate sentence.

Orders