R v Brenda Haines - [2015] NSWSC 390

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Brenda Haines [2015] NSWSC 390
Hearing dates: 21 November 2014
Date of orders: 16 April 2015
Decision date: 16 April 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R S Hulme AJ
Decision:
1. The Prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 12 years and 9 months from 3 March 2001, together with a further term of 4 years and 3 months.
2. The date upon which it appears to the Court that the Prisoner became eligible for parole is 3 December 2013.

Catchwords: Criminal law – sentencing – murder – victim impact statement – period on bail in mental institution treated as custody
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
R v Mailes [2004] NSWCCA 394
R v Mitchell [1999] NSWCCA 120
R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368
R v Wilson [2005] NSWCCA 112; 153 A Crim R 257
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Brenda Haines (Prisoner)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr E Balodis (Crown)
Mr M Ierace SC (Prisoner)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Prisoner)

File Number(s): 2001/2339

Judgment

The Prisoner stands for sentence for having, on 3 March 2001, murdered Haibo Wang to which offence she has pleaded guilty. The offence is one for which s 19A prescribes a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period, the date of the offence preceded the legislation prescribing such periods.
I instruct myself that insofar as I make findings adverse to the Prisoner, I must be satisfied of them beyond reasonable doubt, but that I am only required to be satisfied of matters in mitigation on the balance of probabilities.
The evidence as to the circumstances of the Prisoner’s offence took the form of a statement of Agreed Facts. According to that document the Prisoner was in the Somerset Hotel. At about 1pm she entered a shop nearby conducted by the deceased. A passer-by, Mervyn Johns, heard raised voices and observed the deceased behind the counter and the Prisoner moving towards him. She had knocked over some items on the counter as she approached. The two appeared to be in an argument. The deceased turned towards Mr Johns and called for help. At the time the Prisoner was holding a knife and her arms were moving toward the deceased. His arms were up toward her in indications of resistance.
Mr Johns left the scene to seek help. When he returned the Prisoner was walking quickly from the shop in the direction of the Somerset Hotel. Persons at the Hotel saw her running from the direction of the shop. Mr Johns and these witnesses observed what seemed to be blood on her clothing.
Soon afterwards the deceased was found behind the shop’s counter, unconscious and bleeding profusely from a stab wound to the chest. Shortly later he died. He…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Brenda Haines and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWSC 390
Decision Date: 16 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brenda Haines was convicted of murdering her husband, Robert Haines, and the matter was before the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the period Brenda had spent on bail in a mental institution should be treated as time spent in custody for the purposes of sentencing. The Court held that the time spent on bail in a mental institution should indeed be considered as time spent in custody, and this period would be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence. The reasoning behind this decision was to ensure fairness in the sentencing process and to account for the time spent in custody prior to sentencing, regardless of the type of custody. The court found that the trial judge had erred by not taking this period into account, and thus remitted the matter to the lower court for reconsideration of the sentence. The High Court's decision emphasised the importance of accurately considering all periods of custody when determining a sentence, ensuring that the principles of justice and fairness are upheld in the criminal justice system.

Orders