Police v Hanshaw - [2006] NSWLC 53

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Police v Hanshaw [2006] NSWLC 53

JURISDICTION: Criminal

PARTIES: Police
Stephen Ross Hanshaw

FILE NUMBER:

PLACE OF HEARING: Inverell Local Court

DATE OF DECISION:
05/26/2006

MAGISTRATE: Magistrate G Lerve

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - Intimidate Police - Guideline Judgment - suspended sentence - nature of suspended sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: Attorney General's Application under s. 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (Guidline Judgment on Assault Police (2002) 137 A Crim R 196.
Dinsdale v The Queen 74 ALJR 1538
R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115
R v Schofield (2002) 138 A Crim R 19
R v Taouk (1992) 65 A Crim R 387
R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17

REPRESENTATION: Sgt. Quinn, Police Prosecutor
Mr. S. Collins, Solicitor, for and with the accused

ORDERS:

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1. By way of Court Attendance Notice, the offender Stephen Ross Hanshaw is charged for that he:

“On 10 September 2005 at Inverell in the State of New South Wales did attempt to intimidate Constable Monckton, a police office while the said officer was executing his duty”.

2. The matter was first before the Court on 27 October 2005 on which date the usual brief service orders were made. The matter was again before the Court on 1 December 2005 on which date a plea of not guilty was confirmed. It is not completely clear from the handwritten record (and this is all I have available) but it seems that the offender entered a plea of guilty to that charge on 13 January 2006. The matter was then adjourned for sentence and a full Pre Sentence Report was requested. The matter came initially before me on 18 May 2006 on which date another unrelated matter was also before the Court. Because of illness by the offender both matters were adjourned to 19 May 2006. The other unrelated matter was a charge of larceny (shop lifting) of which the offender was convicted after a defended hearing. He was placed on a supervised Bond pursuant to s. 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in respect of that matter.

3. I note that the sentence proceedings in respect of the charge of Intimidate Police did not come before me until well after 4pm on a Friday after two thoroughly frustrating days (parties not being ready, representatives being late, matters having to stand so that instructions could be obtained, and parties having the opportunity to look at material which had not been inspected prior to the day) of defended hearings at Inverell. That was but one reason why I considered it appropriate to adjourn these sentence proceedings in order that proper consideration could be given to the matter, including proper consideration of the prosecutor’s forceful submission that no other sentence other than full time custody would be appropriate.

Facts

4. The matter proceeded by way of tender of a Police Facts Sheet. That Fact Sheet had been previously tendered.…

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 Police v Hanshaw

Details

AGLC: Police v Hanshaw [2006] NSWLC 53
Case: [2006] NSWLC 53
Decision Date: 05/26/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Police v Hanshaw, the defendant was convicted of intimidating police officers, and the case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Hanshaw was found to have verbally abused and threatened police officers in a public place, leading to his arrest and subsequent conviction. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Hanshaw's conviction, particularly whether a suspended sentence would be suitable in this case.

The court examined the principles governing the imposition of suspended sentences, as well as the relevant legislative guidelines. It was necessary to balance the need for deterrence and the protection of the community against the potential benefits of rehabilitating the offender through a suspended sentence. The court also considered the nature of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. Ultimately, the court determined that a suspended sentence was an appropriate outcome in this case, taking into account the specific nature of the offence and the defendant's potential for rehabilitation.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate sentence. It noted that while intimidating police officers is a serious offence, there may be circumstances where a suspended sentence can be an effective means of achieving the goals of punishment and rehabilitation. The court found that Hanshaw's offence, while serious, did not warrant an immediate custodial sentence, and that a suspended sentence would allow for the possibility of rehabilitation while also serving as a deterrent to others who might consider committing similar offences. The court therefore imposed a suspended sentence on Hanshaw, with specific conditions attached to ensure his rehabilitation and to protect the community.

Orders