R v Dennis - [2018] NSWSC 1733

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dennis [2018] NSWSC 1733
Hearing dates: 12 November 2018
Decision date: 15 November 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 18 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 14 years

Catchwords: SENTENCING – murder – offender stabbed victim while intoxicated by drugs and alcohol – possession of weapon with intent to cause actual bodily harm taken into account on Form 1 – offender with violent and abusive upbringing – polysubstance use disorder – lengthy criminal history – offence just below midrange of objective seriousness – Court not permitted to call up breached bonds imposed in the Local Court – expression of remorse – 20 per cent discount for guilty plea
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 19A, 33B
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A(5AA), 54A(2)
Cases Cited: Drew v R [2016] NSWCCA 310; 264 A Crim R 1
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Howard Dean Dennis
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Shaw (Crown)
Mr J Kellaway (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid NSW

File Number(s): 2016/250801

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Mr Howard Dennis has pleaded guilty and is to be sentenced for the murder of Ms Marion Hickey at Walgett on 19 August 2016.
Murder is a crime that has a maximum penalty under s 19A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) of imprisonment for life and (in the circumstances of this case) a standard non-parole period under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) of 20 years.
The offender has also asked that in sentencing him for this offence I take into account his guilt for an offence listed on a Form 1 document: possessing an offensive weapon with intent to assault a man and cause him actual bodily harm. That is an offence against s 33B of the Crimes Act for which there is prescribed a maximum penalty of 12 years.

The offence

The following summary of how the offences occurred is derived from a Statement of Facts which was tendered by the Crown and signed by the offender so as to indicate his agreement.
The offender was aged 49 and Ms Hickey was aged 26. They had been friends since early 2016. They would spend a lot of time together including using drugs such as Oxycontin and ice (methylamphetamine).
The offender began Friday 19 August 2016 at the Ritchie Street Flats in Walgett drinking port with his brother, Mervyn Dennis, and two others. They had consumed about four or five 750 ml bottles by lunchtime. By about 7.00pm the offender was at a house at 116 Fox Street with his brother and seven other people, most of whom were well intoxicated. The offender himself is described in the Statement of Facts as "well intoxicated and/or drug affected". He, and others, had been smoking marijuana.
There were a number of altercations in which the offender produced a pair of…

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 Dennis

Details

AGLC: R v Dennis [2018] NSWSC 1733
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1733
Decision Date: 15 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Dennis, was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of Queensland. He had stabbed the victim while under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. The Crown had also taken into account the defendant's possession of a weapon with intent to cause actual bodily harm. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence, taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors. The defendant had a violent and abusive upbringing, and suffered from a polysubstance use disorder. He also had a lengthy criminal history, with the current offence just below the midrange of objective seriousness. The court noted that it was not permitted to call up breached bonds imposed in the Local Court, and that the defendant had expressed remorse for his actions.

The court considered the various sentencing principles, including the need for general and specific deterrence, and the need to uphold the rule of law. The court also considered the defendant's background and circumstances, including his upbringing, his drug and alcohol use, and his criminal history. The court noted that the defendant's possession of a weapon with intent to cause actual bodily harm was an aggravating factor, but that his guilty plea entitled him to a 20 per cent discount. The court concluded that the offence was just below the midrange of objective seriousness, and that the defendant's background and circumstances were mitigating factors. The court also noted that the defendant had expressed remorse for his actions.

After weighing all of the factors, the court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment of 15 years, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months. The court considered that this sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account the defendant's background and circumstances, and his expression of remorse. The court noted that the sentence was just below the midrange of objective seriousness, and that the discount for the defendant's guilty plea had been taken into account. The court also noted that the sentence was consistent with the sentences imposed in similar cases. The court ordered that the defendant be placed on a supervision order for a period of five years following his release from prison.

Orders