Legal Research
Cases
Hiron v R

Hiron v R

Case [2007] NSWCCA 336 7 December 2007

Sentencing

Multiple Offences

Utilitarian Discount

Principle of Totality

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Hiron v R [2007] NSWCCA 336

HEARING DATE(S): 13 November 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Hall J at 2; Price J at 3

DECISION: (i) Leave to appeal be granted. (ii) Quash the sentence imposed by Viney ADCJ for count 3a being an offence contrary to s 59(1) Crimes Act 1900. (iii) Sentence the applicant on count 3a to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months commencing on 22 January 2008 and expiring on 21 October 2009 and a balance of term of 2 years commencing on 22 October 2009 and expiring on 21 October 2011. (iv) Quash the sentence imposed by Viney ADCJ for count 4a being an offence contrary to s 59(1) Crimes Act 1900. (v) Sentence the applicant on count 4a to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months commencing on 22 October 2008 and expiring on 21 July 2010 and a balance of term of 2 years commencing on 22 July 2010 and expiring on 21 July 2012. The total effective sentence of imprisonment comprised of a non-parole period of four years commencing on 22 July 2006 and expiring on 21 July 2010 with a balance of term of two years expiring on 21 July 2012 remains unaltered. The earliest date on which the applicant will be eligible for release to parole remains 21 July 2010.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - multiple offences - application of utilitarian discount - principle of totality - sentence not manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s 58, s 59(1),
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s 6(3)

CASES CITED: Callaghan v The Queen (2006) 160 A Crim R 145
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Dunn (2004) 144 A Crim R 180
R v Edigarov (2001) 125 A Crim R 55
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302
R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R 252
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
R v M.A.K., R v M.S.K. [2006] NSWCCA 381
Regina v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28
Regina v Hajjo (Court of Criminal Appeal, 31 August 1992, unreported)

PARTIES: Timothy Paul Hiron
Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/5269

COUNSEL: C Loukas ( Applicant)
P Miller (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S Etherington Legal Aid Commission (Applicant)
S Kavanagh Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/21/1003

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Viney ADCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 8 December 2006

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Regina v Timothy Hiron

2006/5269

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
HALL J
PRICE J
7 December 2007

HIRON v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Price J.

2 HALL J: I agree with Price J.

3 PRICE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence by Timothy Hiron who was sentenced by Viney ADCJ on 8…

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 [2007] NSWCCA 336
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 336
Decision Date: 7 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hiron v R involved the defendant, Hiron, who was convicted of multiple offences. The nature of the dispute was the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial judge, which Hiron argued was excessive. The case was brought before the court of appeal to review the sentencing decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the principle of totality and the application of a utilitarian discount for multiple offences. The court had to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive or if it fell within the range of sentences that a sentencing judge could reasonably impose.

The court of appeal found that the trial judge had properly applied the principle of totality and had appropriately considered the utilitarian discount for multiple offences. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The reasoning of the court was based on the thorough consideration of the principles of sentencing and the appropriate application of those principles to the facts and circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were to affirm the sentence imposed by the trial judge, finding it to be within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of the principle of totality and the proper application of the utilitarian discount in multiple offence cases.

Orders