R v Hacking - [2017] NSWDC 473

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hacking [2017] NSWDC 473
Hearing dates: 25 August 2017
Date of orders: 25 August 2017
Decision date: 25 August 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
I impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years to be served by way of an intensive corrections order: at [43].

Catchwords: SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Assistance to law enforcement authorities — Good character— Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend
SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — General principles — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Health issues — Mental illness
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 2009
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: EF v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 20
Job v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 267
R v Beard [1999] NSWCCA 392
R v Bertoncello (unreported, 5 November 1997)
R v Brown (unreported 1 August 1994, NSWCCA)
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v McInnes (unreported, 26 July 1994 NSWCCA)
R v Pont (2000) 121 A Crim R 302
R v Potter [2000] NSWCCA 26
R v Roth (unreported, 18 December 2015, NSWDC)
Robertson v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 205
Siwek v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 178
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Arthur Hacking (Offender)
Representation:
Mr R Stainer (Crown)
Mr G James QC (Counsel for the Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/210280
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Arthur Hacking appears for sentence having pleaded guilty to a number of counts under s 249B of the Crimes Act1900 of corruptly receiving a benefit, each carrying a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment with no standard non-parole period; and two counts of larceny by a public servant contrary to s 159 of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment with no standard non-parole period.
He asks to be taken into account a number of matters on a Form 1, which are set out in the agreed facts and need not be repeated here. The matters on the Form 1 will be dealt with in the way suggested by the guideline judgment in which the Chief Justice said that matters such as personal deterrence and retribution should be given greater weight in the sentence to be ultimately imposed on the charges which are accompanied by a Form 1.
The agreed facts demonstrate that the offences arose from an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) investigation into New South Wales Rural Fire Service (RFS) officers. The RFS provides ration packs for its front line officers. It was paying $10 for each of these snack packs and purchased well over 100,000 each fire season, so the contract for each of the packs for a single year was worth about $1.5 million.
Mr Hacking was a contracts…

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 Hacking

Details

AGLC: R v Hacking [2017] NSWDC 473
Case: [2017] NSWDC 473
Decision Date: 25 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the sentencing of a defendant named Hacking. The defendant faced sentencing for multiple offences, and the court had to consider various mitigating factors, including his assistance to law enforcement authorities, his good character, his plea of guilty, his rehabilitation prospects, his expression of remorse, and his likelihood of re-offending. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate penalties, particularly considering the possibility of an intensive correction order. The court also needed to address the principles of deterrence, the nature of the form 1 offences, and the principles of accumulation, concurrency, and totality given the multiple offences. Finally, the court had to consider subjective factors, including the defendant's health issues and mental illness.

The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence, taking into account the mitigating factors presented. The primary legal issues revolved around the principles of sentencing, particularly the relevance of the defendant's good character, his plea of guilty, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the specific nature of the offences and the appropriate penalty, including whether an intensive correction order was suitable. The court further deliberated on the principles of deterrence, the impact of multiple offences, and the subjective considerations related to the defendant's health and mental condition.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the defendant's assistance to law enforcement, his plea of guilty, and his expressions of remorse. The court recognised the defendant's good character and his potential for rehabilitation, as well as the need to consider his health issues and mental illness. After weighing all these factors, the court determined that the most appropriate sentence was imprisonment for two years, to be served by way of an intensive correction order. This decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the defendant's potential for rehabilitation and the mitigating circumstances of the case.

The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment of two years, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order. This sentence reflects the court's consideration of the mitigating factors and the principles of sentencing, including the defendant's good character, his plea of guilty, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court balanced these factors with the need for appropriate deterrence and the specific nature of the offences. The intensive correction order was deemed suitable given the defendant's health issues and mental illness, as well as the overall circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

I impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years to be served by way of an intensive corrections order: at [43].

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hacking [2017] NSWDC 473
Hearing dates:	25 August 2017
Date of orders:	25 August 2017
Decision date:	25 August 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	I impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years to be served by way of an intensive corrections order: at [43].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Assistance to law enforcement authorities — Good character— Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — General principles — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Health issues — Mental illness
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 2009 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	EF v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 20 Job v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 267 R v Beard [1999] NSWCCA 392 R v Bertoncello (unreported, 5 November 1997) R v Brown (unreported 1 August 1994, NSWCCA) R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 R v McInnes (unreported, 26 July 1994 NSWCCA) R v Pont (2000) 121 A Crim R 302 R v Potter [2000] NSWCCA 26 R v Roth (unreported, 18 December 2015, NSWDC) Robertson v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 205 Siwek v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 178
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Arthur Hacking (Offender)
Representation:	Mr R Stainer (Crown) Mr G James QC (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2016/210280
Publication restriction:	Nil