Legal Research
Cases
Huntingdon v R

Huntingdon v R

Case [2007] NSWCCA 196 5 July 2007

Sentencing

Special Circumstances

Manifestly Excessive

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Huntingdon v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 196

HEARING DATE(S): 25 June 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 July 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; James J at 2; Hislop J at 3

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted; 2. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentencing - De Simoni principle - Backdating sentence - Special circumstances - Sentence not manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - ss 61, 61L, 61M
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 21A , 24, 47
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s 6(3)

CASES CITED: Markarian v R (2005) 215 ALR 213
R v Button (2002) 54 NSWLR 455
R v Close (1992) 31 NSWLR 743
R v Cook (1999) NSWCCA 234
R v De Simoni (1980-1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Hajjo NSWCCA (unreported 31 August 1992)
R v John David (unreported NSWCCA 20 April 1995)
R v Niass (unreported NSWCCA 16 November 1988)
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Wickham (2004) NSWCCA 193
R v Yang (2003) 135 A Crim R 237

PARTIES: Applicant - Adam Kevin Huntingdon
Respondent - Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/1058

COUNSEL: Applicant - Mr T. Gartelmann
Respondent - Mr R. Herps

SOLICITORS: Applicant - T & A Legal
Respondent - Director of Public Prosecutions (New South Wales)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Mahoney DCJ

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: 06/41/0083

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 1 September 2006

- 1 -

2007/1058

GILES JA
JAMES J
HISLOP J

5 July 2007

Adam Kevin HUNTINGDON V REGINA

Judgment

1 GILES JA: I agree with Hislop J.

2 JAMES J: I agree with Hislop J.

HISLOP J:

Introduction

3 The applicant was charged on indictment with the following offences to which he pleaded guilty:

(1) Assault April Hyde contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 section 61. The maximum penalty for such an offence is 2 years imprisonment,

Crimes Act 1900

The offences occurred on 7 January 2006.

4 On 1 September 2006 the applicant was sentenced in the District Court to imprisonment for a fixed term of 80 days in respect of the first offence and to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 15 months with an additional period of 5 months in respect of the second offence. Each sentence was backdated to commence on 8 May 2006. His Honour directed that the applicant be released to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period on 7 August 2007.

5 The applicant has sought leave to appeal against the sentence in respect of the second offence on the grounds that:

(1) The sentencing judge erred in taking into account an aggravating factor contrary to the principle in De Simoni;

(2) The sentencing judge erred in failing to take into account…

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 Huntingdon v R

Details

AGLC: Huntingdon v R [2007] NSWCCA 196
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 196
Decision Date: 5 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Huntingdon v R, the appellant was convicted of various criminal offences and sentenced to imprisonment. The appellant sought to appeal the sentence imposed, contending that it was manifestly excessive and should be reduced. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence to determine if it was appropriate under the circumstances.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and if it was appropriate to apply the De Simoni principle to backdate the sentence to the date of the appellant's arrest. The appellant argued that the sentence should be reduced due to special circumstances, while the Crown contended that the sentence was fair and proportionate to the offences committed.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases, particularly the De Simoni principle, which allows for backdating a sentence to the date of arrest if certain conditions are met. The court held that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court further found that there were no special circumstances that warranted a reduction in the sentence. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court's decision affirmed the trial judge's assessment of the appropriate sentence and rejected the appellant's argument for a reduction. The High Court upheld the original sentence, finding it to be proportionate and justified under the circumstances. No special circumstances were identified that would warrant a modification of the sentence, and the De Simoni principle did not apply in this case.

Orders