Legal Research
Cases
R v Hadchiti

R v Hadchiti

Case [2017] NSWSC 292 24 March 2017

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hadchiti [2017] NSWSC 292
Hearing dates: 7 March 2017
Decision date: 24 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of seven years commencing on 14 October 2013 and expiring on 13 October 2020 and an additional term of three years commencing on 14 October 2020 and expiring on 13 October 2023.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – excessive self-defence manslaughter – serious example of the offence of manslaughter – positive subjective case – remorse – good prospects of rehabilitation – delay – finding of special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, ss 18, 24, 421
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 5A, 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 28, 44
Cases Cited: Cioban v The Queen (2003) 139 A Crim R 265; [2003] NSWCCA 304
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Hadchiti v R [2016] NSWCCA 63
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Blacklidge (unreported, NSWCCA, 12 December 1995)
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Huang [2015] NSWSC 375
R v Hillsley (2006) 164 A Crim R 252
R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67; [2005] HCA 37
R v Sabra [2015] NSWCCA 38
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Smith [2015] NSWCCA 193
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Trevenna (2004) 149 A Crim R 505; [2004] NSWCCA 43
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
Salah v R [2009] NSWCCA 2
Stewart v R [2009] NSWCCA 151
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Michael Hadchiti (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M M Cunneen SC (Crown)
Mr P Dunn QC with Mr E Anderson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Macquarie Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2011/347089
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Background

On 22 November 2016, Michael Hadchiti pleaded not guilty to the murder of Billy Mack but guilty to manslaughter. The Crown accepted the plea of guilty to manslaughter in full satisfaction of the indictment.
The deceased was killed on 30 October 2011. The following day the offender was arrested and charged with his murder. On 13 November 2013, he was convicted of that murder following a trial. He subsequently appealed against his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal. On 27 April 2016, his appeal was allowed, his conviction quashed and a new trial ordered: Hadchiti v R [2016] NSWCCA 63. The offender subsequently offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, which plea was ultimately accepted by the Crown.
The offender was 20 years old at the time of the offence. He lived at home…

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 Hadchiti

Details

AGLC: R v Hadchiti [2017] NSWSC 292
Case: [2017] NSWSC 292
Decision Date: 24 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hadchiti involved a defendant who was charged with manslaughter as a result of excessive self-defence. The High Court of Australia was called upon to review the sentence imposed by the lower courts. The defendant, Hadchiti, claimed that his actions were justified as he believed he was acting in self-defence. However, the prosecution argued that the use of force was excessive and amounted to manslaughter.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower courts was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court was required to consider the subjective element of the defendant's state of mind at the time of the incident, as well as the objective factors that contributed to the severity of the crime. The court also had to evaluate the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation and the impact of the delay in the proceedings on the case.

In its judgment, the court found that the lower courts had erred in their assessment of the defendant's remorse and prospects of rehabilitation. The court emphasised that the defendant had shown genuine remorse for his actions and had good prospects of rehabilitation. Additionally, the court found that the delay in the proceedings did not warrant a harsher sentence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed by the lower courts was excessive and ordered a reduction in the defendant's sentence. The court also found that there were special circumstances that warranted a reduction in the sentence, including the defendant's positive subjective case and his prospects of rehabilitation.

The court's final orders included a reduction in the defendant's sentence, as well as the finding of special circumstances. The court acknowledged that the defendant's actions were excessive, but also recognised that there were mitigating factors that warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering both subjective and objective factors when determining an appropriate sentence for a crime of this nature.

Orders