R v Benjamin Hayward

Case [2016] NSWDC 67

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Benjamin Hayward [2016] NSWDC 67
Hearing dates:26 April 2016
Decision date: 06 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

For orders see [59]

Catchwords: Sentence, take and detain for advantage, domestic violence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Summary Offences Act (1988) (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Boney [2008] NSWCCA 165
R v Cahyadi (2007) 168 ACrimR 41
R v Caldwell [2016] NSWCCA 55
R v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Benjamin Hayward (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
L Hanshaw (Crown)
S Bouveng (Offender)
File Number(s):15/327664
Publication restriction:Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender was committed for sentence on 16 March 2016 from Wagga Wagga Local Court. He is to be sentenced for two offences:

  1. Take/detain for advantage – pursuant to s 86(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900, for which the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.

  2. Intimidation – pursuant to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (“C(DPV)A”), for which the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.

  1. The offender has asked that two matters be taken into account on a Form 1. They are as follows:

  1. Custody of knife in a public place – pursuant to s 11C of the Summary Offences Act (1988) (NSW). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.

  2. Destroy or damage property – pursuant to s 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.

Circumstances of the offending

  1. As at 7 November 2015, the offender and the victim had been in a domestic relationship for one year and five months. They had one child together. During that day the offender was at work and the victim sent him a large number of text messages, and made a large number of telephone calls to him, as she believed he had been unfaithful to her.

  2. At 8.15pm that evening, the offender attended the victim’s residence in Tolland. He walked through the house to a shed where he obtained possession of two hunting knives. One was contained in a brown leather sheath and had a wooden handle, whilst the other was contained within a plastic yellow sheath, and had a blue handle. Both knives had blades that were approximately 20cm in length.

  3. The offender proceeded back into the house where an argument took place between himself and the victim, and the victim’s mother. In addition to the victim’s mother, two children were in the premises.

  4. The offender grabbed the victim by placing both hands around her neck, and dragged her towards the front door. Her mother intervened, and both women attempted to push him towards the front door to get him out of the house.

  5. The offender raised his right hand, in which he held the blue-handled knife, above his shoulder, with the point of the knife facing directly towards the victim’s mother. Upon seeing…

Continue reading R v Benjamin Hayward

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Benjamin Hayward [2016] NSWDC 67
Case
[2016] NSWDC 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Benjamin Hayward, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had been found guilty of taking and detaining another person for the purpose of sexual advantage. The case involved complex issues surrounding domestic violence and the offender's criminal history. The court was required to balance the severity of the crime with the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the appropriate weight to be given to the offender's criminal history, the aggravating factors of the offence, and the need for a sentence that would both punish the offender and provide a deterrent effect. The court also had to consider the victim's circumstances and the impact of the offence on her. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed was excessive, while the prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the offender's history.

The court examined the principles of sentencing in Australia, emphasising the importance of proportionality and the need to consider the offender's prospects for rehabilitation. The judges held that the trial judge had correctly identified and assessed the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. The court found that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, and therefore dismissed the appeal. The court's reasoning was grounded in a comprehensive analysis of the offender's criminal history, the nature of the offence, and the need to protect the community.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the trial court. The judges emphasised the importance of a sentence that appropriately balanced punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in cases of this nature. The court's decision underscores the significance of considering the offender's criminal history and the impact of the offence on the victim when determining an appropriate sentence in cases involving taking and detaining another person for the purpose of sexual advantage.

Orders

Orders of the court

For orders see [59]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.