Legal Research
Cases
Hughes v R

Hughes v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 15 24 February 2014

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Misconduct in Public Office

False Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: HUGHES, Jenna Lee v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCCA 15

Hearing Date(s): 9 December 2013

Decision Date: 24 February 2014

Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Simpson J at [2];
Hall J at [58]

Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted
(2) Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence appeal - two counts of misconduct in public office - two counts of giving false evidence to Police Integrity Commission pursuant to s 107(1) of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 - applicant's offending related to her employment as a police officer - applicant accessed police database on numerous occasions without authority - accesses related to associates of the applicant - applicant advised associates of the results of her accesses - applicant created false intelligence reports in order to mask her unauthorised accesses - applicant failed to advise police of admissions made to her by her associates in respect of their involvement in stealing a vehicle - at sentence hearing applicant gave evidence in relation to the order of search terms used by her in unauthorised accesses which was contradicted by other independent evidence - sentencing judge satisfied beyond reasonable doubt applicant deliberately lied - at sentence hearing Crown did not oppose imposition of an Intensive Correction Order - sentencing judge not bound by any Crown concessions and retains overriding obligation to impose sentence that reflects overall criminality of the offending - sentencing judge gave careful consideration to the relevant objective and subjective circumstances of the offending in respect of each count - alleged failure by sentencing judge to take into account likelihood applicant would serve sentence in protective custody - conditions of custody not considered at sentence hearing with no evidence led by applicant in that respect - no basis for granting of leave to adduce fresh evidence as to applicant's condition of custody - alleged failure to properly take into account applicant's mental health issues - sentencing judge noted applicant's mental health issues contributed to commission of the offences - applicant had full appreciation of the seriousness of her conduct thereby reducing weight given to her mental health issues - appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Police Integrity Commission Act 1996

Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
R v LP [2010] NSWCCA 154
R v Paris [2001] NSWCCA 83
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
RWB v R (2010) 202 A Crim R 209
Thewlis v R [2008] NSWCCA 176

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Jenna Lee Hughes (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
I McLachlan (Applicant)
V Lydiard (Crown)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2011/284571; 2011/380253; 2012/63378

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal: District Court

- Before: Marien DCJ

- Date of Decision: 28 March 2013

- Court File Number(s): 2011/284571; 2011/380253; 2012/63378

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 Hughes v R

Details

AGLC: Hughes v R [2014] NSWCCA 15
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 15
Decision Date: 24 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hughes v R involved the appellant, who was convicted on two counts of misconduct in public office and two counts of giving false evidence to the Police Integrity Commission. The sentencing appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, a former police officer, had accessed a police database without authorisation and informed her associates of the results of those searches. She also created false intelligence reports to conceal her unauthorised activities and failed to report admissions made by her associates regarding their involvement in stealing a vehicle. The appellant provided false evidence to the Police Integrity Commission, which was contradicted by other evidence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentencing judge had failed to consider certain factors in determining the sentence, specifically the likelihood of the appellant serving her sentence in protective custody and the impact of her mental health issues. The Crown did not oppose the imposition of an Intensive Correction Order, but the court was not bound by this concession and had an obligation to impose a sentence reflecting the overall criminality of the offending. The court considered both the objective and subjective circumstances of the offending in respect of each count.

The court found that the sentencing judge had given careful consideration to the circumstances of the offending, including the appellant's mental health issues. Although the appellant's mental health issues contributed to the commission of the offences, the court found that she had a full appreciation of the seriousness of her conduct, which reduced the weight given to her mental health issues. The court also found that there was no basis for granting leave to adduce fresh evidence regarding the appellant's conditions of custody, as this matter had not been considered at the sentence hearing and no evidence had been led by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed.

The court's final orders were to dismiss the appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant's convictions and sentences on all four counts were upheld.

Orders