Medium Neutral Citation:; R v Hawkins; R v Garland (Sentence)

In the case of R v Hawkins and R v Garland, the defendants were convicted of murder and manslaughter respectively, in relation to the fatal shooting of an elderly woman. The defendants appealed against their sentences, arguing that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentences imposed by the trial judge, considering the nature and circumstances of the crimes, and whether the sentences were appropriate in all the circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentences imposed were appropriate in light of the objective criminality of the offences, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the principles of sentencing in murder and manslaughter cases. The Court had to consider the cold-blooded execution of the grandmother, the motive behind the shooting, the history of childhood trauma and exposure to violence of one of the offenders, and the devastating impact on the victim’s family. The Court also had to consider the belated but genuine expression of remorse by one of the offenders and the unusual procedure where the offender addressed the victim’s family from the dock.

The Court held that while the crimes were heinous and the impact on the victim’s family devastating, the sentences imposed were appropriate in all the circumstances. The Court considered the totality of the offending, the commencement date, and the special circumstances of the case. The Court applied a two-stage approach, first considering the objective criminality of the offences and the relevant factors to the instinctive synthesis, and then considering the mitigating factors, including the psychiatric assessment of one of the offenders. The Court found that the psychiatric assessment had limited relevance to the reduction in moral culpability, given the cold-blooded nature of the crimes. The Court also found that the belated but genuine expression of remorse by one of the offenders, and the unusual procedure where the offender addressed the victim’s family from the dock, were factors that moderated the sentence with leniency.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against sentence, holding that the sentences imposed were appropriate in all the circumstances. The Court noted that the sentences imposed reflected the serious nature of the crimes and the need to deter similar offending in the future. The Court also noted that the sentences imposed provided some measure of justice for the victim’s family, who had suffered a devastating loss. The Court held that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had exercised his discretion properly in imposing the sentences.