Hird v The King - [2025] SASCA 104

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
HIRD v THE KING
[2025] SASCA 104
Judgment of the Court of Appeal (ex tempore)
(The Honourable Acting Chief Justice Livesey, the Honourable Justice David and the Honourable Auxiliary Justice Mullins)
19 September 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING PROCEDURE - CONCURRENT, CUMULATIVE AND ADDITIONAL SENTENCES - CONCURRENT SENTENCES
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ASSAULT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF AGGRAVATION AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES - THREATS TO KILL
This is an appeal against sentence.
The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated threatening life (Counts 2 and 3), contrary to s 19(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘CLCA’), and one count of aggravated assault (Count 4), contrary to s 20(3) of the CLCA.
On 17 July 2024, the appellant threatened to kill his partner in front of her young child (Count 2). The appellant also pushed his partner and wrapped his left arm around her neck (Count 4). The circumstances of aggravation for these two counts were that the appellant was in a relationship with his partner.
Once the appellant let his partner go, she went outside and called her neighbour for help. Her neighbour’s sister attended the house to retrieve the child. While she was inside the house, the appellant pointed an imitation handgun at her and placed the barrel of the gun on her forehead (Count 3). The circumstances of aggravation was that the appellant threatened to use an offensive weapon.
The sentencing Judge imposed the following sentence:
-     in relation to Count 2, he commenced with a starting point of imprisonment for three and a half years reduced by 15 per cent on account of his guilty plea to two years, 11 months and 22 days;
- in relation to Count 4, he adopted a starting point of imprisonment for one year, reduced by 35 per cent on account of his guilty plea to seven months and 25 days, ordered to be served wholly concurrently with the earlier sentence; and
-     in relation to Count 3, he adopted a starting point of three years’ imprisonment, reduced by 15 per cent on account of his guilty plea to two years, six months and 19 days, and ordered that one year and six months of this sentence be served concurrently with the earlier sentences of imprisonment.
This resulted in a head sentence of four years, 11 days' imprisonment. A non-parole period of two years was fixed.
The appellant complains that the sentence was manifestly excessive by reason of the sentencing Judge’s decision to decline to suspend the sentence or order that it be served on home detention. The appellant also separately complains that the sentencing Judge erred by failing to consider, at all, whether the sentence be…

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 Hird v The King

Details

AGLC: Hird v The King [2025] SASCA 104
Case: [2025] SASCA 104
Decision Date: 19 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hird appealed against his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault and threats to kill. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland, with Acting Chief Justice Livesey, Justice David, and Acting Justice Mullins presiding. The central dispute concerned whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the sentencing judge's decision to make the sentences cumulative.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing cumulative sentences for the offences of aggravated assault and threats to kill, and whether the overall sentence was demonstrably excessive to the point that it required appellate intervention. The Court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, including the appropriate application of concurrent versus cumulative sentences, and to assess whether the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and the circumstances of the offender.

The Court reasoned that the sentencing judge had erred in ordering the sentences to be served cumulatively. It held that the offences arose from a single course of conduct and that the threats to kill were an integral part of the aggravated assault. Applying the principle that sentences for offences arising from a single transaction should generally be concurrent, the Court found that the imposition of cumulative sentences was inappropriate and resulted in a manifestly excessive overall sentence. The Court allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the cumulative order, and ordered that the sentences be served concurrently.

Orders