R v Hagan - [2019] NSWSC 128

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hagan [2019] NSWSC 128
Hearing dates: 15 February 2019
Date of orders: 15 February 2019
Decision date: 15 February 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:
Convicted of being an accessory after the fact to murder.

Sentenced to a non-parole period of three years, commencing 7 November 2017, and expiring on 6 November 2020.
That will be followed by a parole period of one year nine months, expiring on 6 August 2022.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – remarks on sentence – accessory after the fact to murder – plea of guilty – assistance to authorities – young, damaged offender – discussion of objective gravity and moral culpability of offence – sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 23
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 349(1)
Cases Cited: LB v R [2013] NSWCCA 70
R v Tevendale [1955] VLR 95
Previtera v R (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Anthony Hagan
Representation:
Counsel:
T Bailey (Crown)
M King (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
David Davidge (Offender)

File Number(s): 2017/337141

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Introduction [1]

1. Headings and statute and case references inserted subsequently; remainder of document is verbatim as read.

Anthony Hagan (the offender) has pleaded guilty in the Local Court to one count of being an accessory after the fact to murder, he has previously formally entered that plea on arraignment in this Court in Sydney, and he has maintained that plea through his counsel today.
The offence is undoubtedly a serious one, for the following reasons.
First, it carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years: s 349(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The only greater maximum penalty in New South Wales is imprisonment for life without possibility of parole. Of course, such a sentence is reserved for the most serious examples of such an offence. Nevertheless, that important guidepost to my exercise of sentencing discretion surely demonstrates how seriously Parliament views this kind of offending.
Secondly, the offence of being an accessory after the fact to murder is part of a sentencing structure created by Parliament that depends upon the gravity of the various offences that one has assisted. As one would expect, this offence is at the top of that structure: see s 349 and s 350 of the Crimes Act.
Thirdly, the elements of the offence that the offender has admitted are that, after a person had been murdered by another person, the offender, with knowledge that the murder had been committed, did an act with intent to assist the murderer to escape justice: R vTevendale [1955] VLR 95. Doing such a thing with those states of mind surely attracts the condemnation of the community, and a sentencing court must reflect that natural condemnation.
Analysing further the elements of this offence for a moment, it is important, I think, that I explain, for the benefit 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 Hagan

Details

AGLC: R v Hagan [2019] NSWSC 128
Case: [2019] NSWSC 128
Decision Date: 15 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the respondent, Hagan, who pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the murder of an individual. The court heard the matter and was required to determine an appropriate sentence for Hagan, who had provided significant assistance to the authorities in relation to the murder case. The respondent had a troubled background and had exhibited signs of being a damaged individual, which was considered in the sentencing process. The court needed to balance the objective gravity of the offence with Hagan's personal circumstances and the extent to which he had assisted law enforcement in apprehending the actual perpetrator.

The central legal issue before the court was to decide on an appropriate sentence for Hagan, who had admitted to being an accessory after the fact to a serious crime. The court had to weigh the moral culpability associated with Hagan's actions against his background and the assistance he provided to the authorities. The court was also required to consider the objective gravity of the offence in determining the sentence. This involved assessing the severity of the underlying crime and the role Hagan played in facilitating it.

In delivering the sentence, the court considered the objective gravity of the offence, which involved a serious crime of murder. The moral culpability of Hagan was also assessed, taking into account his background as a young and damaged offender. The court gave significant weight to the assistance Hagan had provided to the authorities in apprehending the actual perpetrator of the crime. Based on these factors, the court imposed a sentence that reflected both the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating circumstances surrounding Hagan's case. The court aimed to achieve a balance between the need for punishment and the recognition of Hagan's cooperation with law enforcement.

The final orders of the court included a specific sentence for Hagan, acknowledging his guilty plea and the assistance he provided to the authorities. The court's decision reflected the complex considerations involved in sentencing a young and damaged offender who had played a role in a serious crime. The sentence imposed aimed to achieve justice by considering both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors associated with Hagan's personal circumstances.

Orders