CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – application for leave to appeal out of time – murder – joint criminal enterprise – reduction of sentence to reflect provocation by deceased – relevance of ill health to sentence – question of quasi-custody on bail – parity – effect of applicant’s incarceration on family members – special circumstances
THE COURT: On 26 March 2013, following a trial before a jury, Darren Michael Hoskins, the applicant, was convicted of murder contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Two of his co-offenders, Sean Sutcliffe and Darrin Moulds, were also convicted of murder. Michael Brown was convicted of manslaughter and the final co-offender, LC, was dealt with in earlier proceedings, ultimately giving evidence against his co-offenders.
On 7 June 2013, the applicant was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment to date from 4 July 2011 and expiring on 3 July 2023. A non-parole period of 9 years was fixed, and is due to expire on 3 July 2020.
On 21 June 2013, the applicant filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal (“NIA”) against both conviction and sentence, but the matter ultimately proceeded to hearing on 27 August 2014 as an appeal against conviction only: Hoskins v R [2014] NSWCCA 207. The appeal against sentence was, effectively, abandoned.
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal, out of time, against sentence.
Relevant facts
On 18 January 2011, the deceased, Jamie LaFoe, with two others, apparently spoke with Mr Sutcliffe’s partner at the Sutcliffe home and said he believed that the applicant had set his car, plus two others, alight.
A number of phone calls were made after this, and as a result Mr Moulds…
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 Hoskins v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hoskins v R [2016] NSWCCA 157
Case
[2016] NSWCCA 157
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Hoskins v R involved the appellant seeking leave to appeal out of time against a sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant was convicted of murder as part of a joint criminal enterprise and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The legal issues before the court centred on the applicability of a provocation defence in reducing the sentence, the relevance of the appellant's ill health, the quasi-custody conditions of bail, and the impact of incarceration on family members. Additionally, the court considered whether special circumstances existed that warranted an extension of the appeal period.
The court examined the appellant's arguments in detail, assessing whether the provocation by the deceased was sufficiently severe to warrant a reduction in the sentence. It also considered the appellant's health and its implications for sentencing. The court further explored the concept of quasi-custody on bail and its relevance to the appeal. It weighed the impact of the appellant's incarceration on his family against the need for legal certainty and the principle of finality in criminal sentencing. Ultimately, the court found that none of the arguments presented were sufficient to constitute special circumstances warranting an extension of the appeal period. The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed.