Hyman v Regina - [2007] NSWCCA 47

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Hyman v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 47

HEARING DATE(S): 20/02/2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 February 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Bell J at 2; Hoeben J at 3

DECISION: Leave to appeal is granted.; The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - offences of making and using a false instrument and obtaining a financial advantage by deception - application of s21A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - whether global approach to sentencing appropriate - requirement to apply Pearce v The Queen - whether sentences manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Dowd [2005] NSWCCA 113 at [40]-[41]
R v Hommoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66 at 67-68
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704

PARTIES: Judy-Ann Hyman - Applicant
Regina - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/0005

COUNSEL: David Carroll - Applicant
W Dawe QC - Crown

SOLICITORS: Shiranica George, Lawyers
S Kavanagh -Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/1012

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Puckeridge DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 23/06/2006

2007/0005

SULLY J
BELL J
HOEBEN J
Tuesday, 27 February 2007

Judy-Ann HYMAN v REGINA

JUDGMENT

1 SULLY J: I agree with Hoeben J.

2 BELL J: I agree with Hoeben J.

3 HOEBEN J: On 23 June 2006 the applicant was sentenced by Puckeridge DCJ in relation to a large number of offences of dishonesty. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the offences and they were dealt with in two groups. The first group consisted of nine offences of make a false instrument contrary to s300(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and nine offences of use a false instrument contrary to s300(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty for each offence imprisonment for 10 years). His Honour was asked to take into account a further fifty matters on a Form 1. Of those matters forty eight were offences of making or using a false instrument and two were offences of obtaining financial advantage by deception.

4 The second group of offences consisted of two offences of obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to s178BA of the Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty imprisonment for 5 years). His Honour was asked to take into account another five offences of obtaining financial advantage by deception on a Form 1.

5 In relation to the first group of offences, his Honour took into account the Form 1 matters when sentencing for two offences described as sequence numbers 5 and 6. For those matters his Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for 5 years and 3 months to commence on 15 June 2006 and to expire on 14 September 2011. His Honour set a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months to expire on 14 March 2010. His Honour imposed the same sentence for the remaining offences in the…

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 Hyman v Regina

Details

AGLC: Hyman v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 47
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 47
Decision Date: 27 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hyman v Regina involved the appellant, Hyman, appealing against his conviction and sentence for offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Hyman was found guilty of making and using a false instrument with intent to defraud and obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The matter was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues in this appeal revolved around the application of section 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the appropriateness of a global approach to sentencing in the context of multiple related offences. The court also had to consider whether the principle established in Pearce v The Queen applied to this case and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. Hyman argued that the total sentence was disproportionate to the offending and that the sentencing judge failed to adequately apply the principles of parity and proportionality.

The High Court, in considering these issues, held that the global approach to sentencing was appropriate where offences are part of a single criminal transaction or a series of related offences. The court further determined that while the principle of parity was relevant, it was not determinative in every case. The imposition of cumulative sentences for multiple offences could be justified if the offending warranted such a response. In this instance, the court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's culpability, and the need for general deterrence. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

No further orders were made by the Court.

Orders