Hunt v Regina - [2006] NSWCCA 28

CITATION: Hunt v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 28

HEARING DATE(S): 10 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 February 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1, 28; Adams J at 25; Latham J at 27

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 02/10/2006

DECISION: Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – sentence – excessive – no question of principle

PARTIES: Melissa Anne Hunt (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/1622

COUNSEL: A Francis (Applicant)
W Dawe QC (Crown)

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor (Applicant)
S Kavanagh (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 04/31/0387

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Coolahan DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 02/10/2006

2005/1622

HANDLEY JA
ADAMS J
LATHAM J
10 FEBRUARY 2006

REGINA v MELISSA ANNE HUNT

Judgment

1 HANDLEY JA: This is an application for leave to appeal by Melissa Hunt from sentences imposed on her by Coolahan DCJ at Newcastle on 4 February 2005.

2 The applicant pleaded guilty to four offences, two counts of break enter and steal, one count of break and enter with intent to steal, and one count of obtaining a valuable object by deception.

3 All the offences were committed within a period of a few days in June 2004 when the applicant was on parole having been released after completing the non-parole period of earlier sentences for similar offences. The applicant also asked for 10 offences to be taken into account on a Form 1.

4 Ms Francis, who appeared for the applicant, has submitted that the overall sentences imposed by the learned sentencing Judge were excessive bearing in mind that she will be separated from her five children until 23 December 2008. She is already substantially estranged from them and by the time she is released the possibility of becoming reconciled and re-establishing a family relationship with them will be significantly diminished. This is undoubtedly an important matter.

5 The applicant was arrested on 24 June 2004 and has been in custody since. She will be serving the balance of the sentences earlier imposed by Coolahan DCJ on 16 October 2002 until 29 July 2006.

6 The sentences imposed by the sentencing Judge in February 2005 were as follows: for the offence of obtaining a valuable object by deception committed on 23 June 2004 imprisonment for nine months to expire on 23 March 2005. This was wholly concurrent with the balance of the sentences for which parole had been revoked.

7 For the offence of break enter and steal with intent committed on 24 June the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of 18 months to commence on 24 December 2004 and expire on 23 June 2006. This was concurrent not only with the balance of the earlier sentences but also with the previous sentence so that only an additional six months was imposed.

8 For the offence of break enter and steal committed on 18 June the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of two years to commence on 24 June 2005 and expire on 23 June…

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 Hunt v Regina

Details

AGLC: Hunt v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 28
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 28
Decision Date: 10 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hunt v Regina involved the appellant, who had been convicted of drug trafficking. The appellant contested the severity of the sentence imposed, arguing it was excessive. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant's appeal was grounded in the argument that the sentence was disproportionate to the crime committed, lacking any basis in principle.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was so excessive as to constitute an error of principle. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in imposing a sentence that was not only disproportionate but also without a sound basis in the principles of sentencing. The court also had to consider whether the sentence imposed was unjust and whether there were any significant errors in the application of the sentencing principles that warranted a reduction in the sentence.

In considering the appeal, the court examined the principles of sentencing, including the need for proportionality and the role of deterrence. The court found that the sentence imposed was not so disproportionate as to constitute an error of principle. It held that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the various factors involved in sentencing and had not erred in the application of sentencing principles. The court emphasised that while the sentence was severe, it was not without justification and did not reflect an error of principle. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders