R v Anthony Norman Hicks - [2005] NSWCCA 90

CITATION:
R v Anthony Norman Hicks [2005] NSWCCA 90
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 15 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

15 March 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Tobias JA at 31; Wood CJ at CL at 32; Buddin J at 1

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
Sentencing - severity appeal - culpable driving offences - relevance of general deterrence where offender has a mental disorder - no finding of "special circumstances"

CASES CITED:
R v Engert (1996) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Hookey [2004] NSWCCA 223
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Plumb [2003] NSWCCA 359
R v Price [2004] NSWCCA 186
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Skrill [2002] NSWCCA 484
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252

PARTIES:
Regina
Anthony Norman Hicks

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/96

COUNSEL:
J Bennett SC (Crown)
H Dhanji (Applicant)

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

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/71/0081

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Woods ADCJ

2005/96

TOBIAS JA
WOOD CJ at CL
BUDDIN J
TUESDAY 15 MARCH 2005

REGINA v ANTHONY NORMAN HICKS

Judgment

1 BUDDIN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed upon him in the District Court following his pleas of guilty to two counts of driving a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to other persons. The result of his driving was that the two passengers in the vehicle sustained injuries amounting to grievous bodily harm. Each offence attracted a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. The applicant asked that two other offences, namely matters of driving whilst his licence was cancelled and driving with a low range of PCA, be taken into account on sentence. The former offence attracted a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment as the applicant had a prior conviction for a similar offence in 1999.

2 The applicant was sentenced on 24 September 2004 to concurrent terms of 16 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months in respect of each offence. Both terms were ordered to commence on 24 June 2004 to account for a period of approximately three months which the applicant had spent in custody prior to sentence. His Honour also disqualified the applicant from holding a driver’s licence for a period of 3 years.

3 The facts in the matter are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. Shortly before 6 pm on the evening in question, the applicant was driving a Holden Commodore towards the township of Jugiong. He was driving in excess of the speed limit which was 100 kph for that section of the road. The vehicle left the road and collided with road signs before rolling onto its side. It finally came to rest against a chain mesh fence. As I have already observed, there were two…

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 R v Anthony Norman Hicks

Details

AGLC: R v Anthony Norman Hicks [2005] NSWCCA 90
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 90
Decision Date: 15 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Anthony Norman Hicks involved the defendant, Anthony Norman Hicks, who was convicted of culpable driving offences and subsequently sentenced by a lower court. Hicks appealed the severity of his sentence, arguing that the court had failed to properly consider the relevance of general deterrence in light of his mental disorder. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in New South Wales, which had jurisdiction to review the sentencing decision. The court was required to determine whether the lower court erred in not considering the impact of Hicks' mental disorder on the relevance of general deterrence and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the lower court had appropriately assessed the relevance of general deterrence in the context of Hicks' mental disorder and whether this failure constituted a ground for appeal. The court needed to examine whether the lower court had erred in not finding "special circumstances" that would warrant a reduced sentence, particularly given Hicks' mental health issues. The appeal hinged on whether the lower court's failure to consider the mitigating effect of Hicks' mental disorder on the need for general deterrence amounted to a significant error in the sentencing process.

The Court of Appeal found that the lower court had indeed erred in not sufficiently considering the relevance of general deterrence in light of Hicks' mental disorder. The court emphasised that in cases involving offenders with mental disorders, the relevance of general deterrence could be significantly reduced, and this factor should have been given greater weight in the sentencing decision. The court noted that the lower court had not made any finding of "special circumstances," which could have led to a more lenient sentence. Consequently, the Court of Appeal determined that the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive and ordered a reduction in the sentence. The court also highlighted the importance of properly considering all mitigating factors, including mental health issues, in the sentencing process.

Orders