District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v David Hanna [2014] NSWDC 234 Hearing dates: 17 September - 1 October 2014, 14 November 2014 Decision date: 12 December 2014 Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Full time custodial sentence. For Orders see [61]
Catchwords: Assault and steal motor vehicle in company; robbery with corporal violence; Joint criminal enterprise. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1998Cases Cited: Cahadi v R (2007) 168 AcrimR 41
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Black [2001] NSWCCA 41
Sheather v R [2009] NSWCCA 173
Veen v R No. 2 (1998) Vol 164 CLR 465Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
David Hanna (Offender)Representation: D Robinson (Crown)
D Hawkins (Offender Hanna)
File Number(s): 13/190914 Publication restriction: Nil
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
On 1 October 2014 the offender was found guilty of two counts on the Indictment. They were:
(1) Count 1 - On 21 June 2013 at Prospect in the State of New South Wales, whilst in the company of each other, assaulted Jeremy Henley with intent to take a motor vehicle, namely a Holden Commodore, registration AFB 23V, without the consent of the person in lawful possession of the motor vehicle, namely, Jeremy Henley, and then took and drove the said motor vehicle.
The charge was brought pursuant to s 154C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and has a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 5 years.
(2) Count 3 - On 21 June 2013 at Prospect in the State of New South Wales, robbed Jeremy Henley of his property, namely, a sum of cash and key card, and immediately before the robbery used corporal violence upon Jeremy Henley.
The charge was brought pursuant to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and has a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.
The trial, which commenced on 17 September 2014, was a joint trial with identical charges being tried against the co-accused, John Camilleri.
The sentence hearing took place on 14 November 2014.
Circumstances of the Offending
Based on the evidence at trial, I make the following findings of fact. The evidence comprised the Crown case against the offender and co-offender, neither of whom gave evidence. Evidence was called on behalf of the offender.
The co-offender had agreed with Jeremy Henley on 17 June 2013 that Mr Henley would drive him, the co-offender having lost his licence. The agreement was put into effect on several days during that week.
On Friday 21 June 2013 at approximately 8.20pm Mr Henley picked up the co-offender and his girlfriend, Ashley Cross, at the Hungry Jacks outlet on Great Western Highway at Prospect. After purchasing some food, they drove to Myrtle Street Prospect and parked outside 134 Myrtle Street. The offender, David Hanna, lived at 132 Myrtle Street. The co-offender alighted from the car and went into those premises. Mr Henley was waiting in the car, together with Ms…
Continue reading R v David Hanna
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v David Hanna [2014] NSWDC 234
- Case
- [2014] NSWDC 234
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence presented and considered the legal principles surrounding assault, theft in company, and robbery. It determined that the defendant's actions met the criteria for the offences charged. In particular, the court found that the defendant used violence to steal the motor vehicle and committed robbery with corporal violence. The court also concluded that the defendant was part of a joint criminal enterprise, sharing a common criminal intent with his accomplices. The court considered the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation in its sentencing.
The court sentenced David Hanna to a full-time custodial sentence, reflecting the gravity of his crimes and the need to protect the community. The specific details of the sentence were outlined in the court's reasons for judgment. The defendant's participation in a joint criminal enterprise and the use of violence during the commission of the crimes were significant factors in the court's decision. The court emphasised the importance of holding offenders accountable for their actions and ensuring that the sentence serves as a deterrent to others who might consider engaging in similar criminal behaviour.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full time custodial sentence. For Orders see [61]
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.