Legal Research
Cases
Hiron v R

Hiron v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 10 12 February 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hiron v R [2018] NSWCCA 10
Hearing dates: 11 October 2017
Date of orders: 12 February 2018
Decision date: 12 February 2018
Before: Leeming JA at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
Adamson J at [62]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence – Applicant pleaded guilty to assault with intent to rob whilst armed causing wounding under s.98 Crimes Act 1900 - co-offender pleaded guilty to reckless wounding whilst in company under s.35(3) Crimes Act 1900 – Applicant appeals on parity ground – obvious are marked distinction between offences and offenders – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Cameron v R [2017] NSWCCA 229
Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Lloyd v R [2017] NSWCCA 303
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46
Miles v R [2017] NSWCCA 266
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26
R v Dennis [2015] NSWCCA 297
Shortland v R (2013) 224 A Crim R 486; [2013] NSWCCA 4
Wan v R [2017] NSWCCA 261
Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460; [2012] NSWCCA 44
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Shannon Michael Hiron (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G Turnbull SC (Applicant)
Mr N Adams (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Tashman Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/279564
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

---

Citation:

---

Date of Decision:

31 March 2016

Before:

Her Honour Judge Syme

File Number(s):

2014/279564

Judgment

LEEMING JA: I agree with Johnson J.
JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Shannon Michael Hiron, seeks leave to appeal with respect to a sentence passed at the Penrith District Court on 31 March 2016 for an offence of assault with intent to rob whilst armed causing wounding contrary to s.98 Crimes Act 1900.
Following the Applicant’s plea of guilty entered on the first day of his scheduled trial, the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for six years and three months commencing on 31 March 2016 and concluding on 30 June 2022 with a non-parole period of four years and eight months commencing on 31 March 2016 and expiring on 30 November 2020.
The maximum penalty for an offence under s.98 Crimes Act 1900 is imprisonment for 25 years and a standard non-parole period of seven years applies.

Ground of Appeal

By Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal filed on 12 May 2017, the Applicant communicated the following grounds of appeal:

Ground 1 - The Applicant suffers a justifiable sense of grievance when comparing the sentence upon him with the sentence imposed upon his co-offender, Matthew Johnson.

Ground 2 - The sentencing Judge erred in imposing, in all the circumstances, a sentence which was manifestly excessive.

At the commencement of the hearing before this Court on…

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 Hiron v R

Details

AGLC: Hiron v R [2018] NSWCCA 10
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 10
Decision Date: 12 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hiron v R involved the applicant, who pleaded guilty to assault with intent to rob while armed causing wounding, as per section 98 of the Crimes Act 1900. The co-offender had pleaded guilty to reckless wounding while in company, under section 35(3) of the same Act. The applicant contested the disparity in sentences between the two offenders, appealing on the grounds of parity. The key legal issues revolved around the sentencing disparity between the applicant and his co-offender, despite their different roles in the crime and the varying severity of their charges.

The court examined whether the sentences were proportionate given the differences in the roles and the severity of the charges. It found that while there was an apparent disparity between the offences and the offenders, it was not so marked as to render the sentences manifestly unjust. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case, including the applicant's guilty plea and the totality of the circumstances. The court found that the sentencing disparity did not breach the principle of parity.

In dismissing the appeal, the court concluded that the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion correctly, taking into account all relevant factors. The sentences were deemed proportionate and appropriate given the nature of the offences and the roles of the offenders. The appeal was therefore dismissed, affirming the sentences handed down by the lower court. The court's decision underscored the importance of the sentencing judge's discretion in ensuring that sentences are fair and proportionate in light of the specific circumstances of each case.

Orders