Legal Research
Cases
Hughes v R

Hughes v R

Case [2013] NSWCCA 129 5 June 2013

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Hughes v R [2013] NSWCCA 129
Hearing dates: 14 May 2013
Decision date: 05 June 2013
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Hall J at [2]
Davies J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Allow the appeal.
(3) Quash the sentence imposed by Judge Williams. In lieu impose an aggregate sentence consisting of a non-parole period of 2 years commencing 24 February 2012 and expiring 23 February 2014 with an additional term of 1 year and 3 months expiring 23 May 2015.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - make false statement with intent to obtain money - early admission of offences to ICAC investigators - assistance regarding other persons involved - no discount for assistance given - long delay in prosecution after admissions - change of circumstances - discount for delay - need to specify discount
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988
Cases Cited: R v Blanco [1999] NSWCCA 121; (1999) 106 A Crim R 303
Kite v R [2009] NSWCCA 12
LB v R [2013] NSWCCA 70
Lewins v R [2007] NSWCA 189
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381
R v PPB [1999] NSWCA 360
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
SZ v R [2007] NSWCCA 19; 168 A Crim R 249
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Renea Angeline Hughes (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
A Francis(Applicant)
T Smith (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/98465
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2012-02-24 00:00:00

Before:

Williams DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/98465

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ AT CL: I agree with Davies J.

HALL J: I agree with the orders proposed by Davies J.

DAVIES J: On 17 February 2012 the Applicant pleaded guilty to an indictment containing eight counts of make a false statement with intent to obtain money contrary to s 178BB Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and one count of cause unauthorised computer function with the intent to facilitate the commission of a serious indictable offence contrary to s 308C Crimes Act. In addition the Applicant admitted five further offences of obtaining a benefit by deception contrary to s 178BA Crimes Act which were taken into account on a Form 1.

All of the sentences carried a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

The Sentencing Judge, Judge Williams, imposed an aggregate sentence of a non-parole period of two years and six months imprisonment with an additional term of one year and six months with the sentence commencing 24 February 2012, the non-parole period expiring on…

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 [2013] NSWCCA 129
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 129
Decision Date: 05 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the accused, Hughes, faced charges for making a false statement with the intent to obtain money, an offence under the Criminal Code. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, where the court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Hughes following his admissions and the subsequent delays in prosecution. Hughes had initially made admissions to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) investigators, which included providing assistance regarding other individuals involved in the offence. However, no discount for assistance was given due to the nature of the offence. Furthermore, there was a significant delay in the prosecution following Hughes' admissions, and the court considered whether this warranted a discount in sentencing. The court also assessed any changes in circumstances that might influence the sentencing.

The court examined the principles surrounding sentencing for offences of this nature, particularly focusing on the factors of early admissions and the delay in prosecution. The absence of a discount for assistance rendered to ICAC investigators was justified given the serious nature of the offence. The court also considered the substantial delay in prosecution and whether this warranted a discount. It was emphasised that if such a discount was to be applied, it was essential for the court to specify the reasons for the discount in its sentencing remarks. This approach ensures transparency and provides guidance for future cases.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously balanced the various factors involved in sentencing. It recognised the importance of deterring such offences while also considering the mitigating factors presented by Hughes. The court ultimately determined that although there was a significant delay in prosecution, the overall circumstances did not warrant a substantial discount. The court emphasised the need for specificity in any discount applied, ensuring that future cases could benefit from clear judicial reasoning. The final orders reflected the court's comprehensive assessment of the mitigating and aggravating factors, resulting in a sentence that balanced the need for deterrence with the circumstances of the case.

Orders