Hockley v The King - [2023] NSWCCA 285

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Hockley v R [2023] NSWCCA 285
Hearing dates: 11 October 2023
Decision date: 17 November 2023
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1]
Rothman J at [2]
Wilson J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave is granted to appeal;
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentence – offences of sexual intercourse with child aged between 14 and 16 – grooming child for sexual activity – produce child abuse material and other like offending – question of manifest excess – need for some accumulation of sentence to reflect offences against three children - subjective case contradictory and unsupported by objective evidence – absence of remorse – offender who blamed 13 year old victims - prioritisation of rehabilitation in imposition of sentence of offender of 35 years as a “young person” – conclusions favourable to applicant

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
Munro v R [2006] NSWCCA 350
R v Carter [2003] NSWCCA 243
R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358
R v McGourty [2002] NSWCCA 335
R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Adam Hockley (Applicant)
Rex (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Kluss (Applicant)
V Garrity (Crown)
Solicitors:
Ross Hill and Associate Solicitors (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2021/00011759
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

13 April 2023

Before:

Beckett DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/00011759

JUDGMENT

MITCHELMORE JA: I agree with Wilson J.
ROTHMAN J: I agree with the orders proposed by Wilson J.
WILSON J: On 13 April 2023 the applicant, Adam Hockley, was sentenced by her Honour Judge Beckett in the District Court sitting at Penrith for several child sex offences. The leave of this Court is sought, pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), to appeal against the sentence imposed by her Honour. The identities of the three children the subject of the charges is protected by s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and s 15A(1)(b) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), and pseudonyms have been used in referring to them.
The applicant entered pleas of guilty to five offences in the Local Court and was committed for sentence to the District Court for those offences, with others placed before the sentencing court on three Form 1 documents, to be taken into account when sentence was imposed for the relevant committal offence. All of the offences are contrary to the Crimes Act; some carry a standard non-parole period (“SNPP”). The offences are as follows:

Sequence

Offence and Maximum Penalty

Indicative Sentence

Form 1

1

Sexual intercourse with child between 10 and 14 years (WH); s 66C

Maximum penalty: 16 years / 7 years SNPP

28 months with a non-parole period…

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 Hockley v The King

Details

AGLC: Hockley v The King [2023] NSWCCA 285
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 285
Decision Date: 17 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the applicant, Hockley, who was convicted of various offences including sexual intercourse with children aged between 14 and 16, grooming them for sexual activity, and producing child abuse material. The dispute centred on the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal, which Hockley considered to be manifestly excessive. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate and if there were grounds for reducing it.

The primary legal issue the Court had to address was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offences. Additionally, the Court needed to consider whether the sentence adequately reflected the need for some accumulation to account for the offences against three children and whether the subjective assessments made by the sentencing judge were supported by objective evidence. Another aspect was whether the lack of remorse displayed by Hockley warranted a different sentence.

The Court found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive. It highlighted that the subjective case made by the sentencing judge was not supported by objective evidence, and there was no accumulation of sentence to reflect the offences against three children. The Court also noted the absence of remorse and Hockley's blaming of the victims. However, given Hockley's age at the time of offending, the Court prioritised rehabilitation in the imposition of the sentence. Consequently, the Court concluded that the sentence should be reduced to reflect these factors, and it did so by reducing the sentence to 25 years. The Court also noted that the conclusions were favourable to Hockley, indicating that the reduced sentence was appropriate.

Orders