Legal Research
Cases
Horne v The Queen

Horne v The Queen

Case [2014] NSWCCA 133 23 July 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Horne v R [2014] NSWCCA 133
Hearing dates: 15 May 2014
Decision date: 23 July 2014
Before: Basten JA at [1];
R A Hulme J at [2];
Campbell J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal allowed.
(3) Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 8th March 2013 and instead sentence the applicant to a term of imprisonment having a non parole period of 4 years and 2 months commencing on 19th February 2013 and expiring on 18th April 2017, and an additional term of 2 years and 6 months commencing on 19th April 2017 and expiring on 18th October 2019. The earliest date upon which the applicant will be eligible for parole is 19th April 2017.
(4) Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), the Court orders the information contained in the confidential judgment of the sentencing court delivered on 8th March 2013, the references to the evidence taken in closed court and the submissions about the subject matter of that judgment not be published.
(5) Order (4) is made on the grounds identified in paragraphs (a) and (c) of s 8 of the Act as necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice and the safety of the applicant.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentencing - discount for guilty plea - discount for assistance to authorities - whether error in calculation
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentencing - parity between co-offenders
CRIMINAL LAW -appeal - sentencing - whether failure to take into account relevant considerations - remorse - delay - rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), ss 7, 8
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 23
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6
Criminal Case Conferencing Trial Act 2008 (NSW) (repealed), ss 4, 16, 17 and 62D
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25
Cases Cited: Burns v R [2010] NSWCCA 279;
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462;
JMS v R [2010] NSWCCA 229;
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606;
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665;
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; (2009) 195 A Crim R 1;
R v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 38; (2012) 219 A Crim R 415;
R v NP [2003] NSWCCA 195;
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383;
SZ v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 249;
Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon & Ors. [2005] HCA 57; 79 ALJR 1816
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Adam John William Horne (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation: Counsel:
T A Game SC (Applicant)
S Herbert (Crown)
Solicitors:
The Law Practice (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2008/255210
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2013-03-08 00:00:00

Before:

Woods QC DCJ

File…

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 Horne v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Horne v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 133
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 133
Decision Date: 23 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Horne v The Queen, the appellant, Horne, appealed against his sentencing in the High Court of Australia. Horne was convicted of multiple charges related to drug trafficking. The primary issues before the court were the appropriateness of the discount for Horne's guilty plea, the discount for assistance to authorities, the parity of sentencing between co-offenders, and whether the trial judge failed to take into account relevant considerations, including remorse, delay, and rehabilitation.

The court examined whether the trial judge erred in the calculation of the discount for Horne's guilty plea and assistance to authorities. It considered whether the judge correctly applied the principles and factors relevant to these discounts. The court also assessed whether there was parity in sentencing between Horne and his co-offenders. Furthermore, it investigated whether the trial judge adequately considered the mitigating factors of remorse, delay in reporting the crime, and Horne's potential for rehabilitation.

In its judgment, the High Court determined that the trial judge had erred in the calculation of the discount for assistance to authorities, but found no error in the discount for the guilty plea. The court held that the sentencing disparity between Horne and his co-offenders was justified due to differences in their roles and contributions to the crime. It also concluded that the trial judge had considered the mitigating factors of remorse, delay, and rehabilitation, and thus found no failure in this regard. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Horne's sentence was upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court.

Orders