R v Haile - [2016] NSWSC 1732

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Haile [2016] NSWSC 1732
Hearing dates: 22 February-9 June 201611 November 2016; 2 December 2016
Date of orders: 09 December 2016
Decision date: 09 December 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: RS Hulme AJ
Decision:
Up to the time of the conclusion of the trial of the co-accused listed to commence on 7 August 2017 or further order, as an incident of any publication of these remarks there be no naming of, or reference to, the co-accused or to the Prisoner having been involved a joint criminal enterprise;
Up to the time of the conclusion of the trial of the co-accused listed to commence on 7 August 2017 or further order, there be no publication of the fact of application by the co-accused for non-publication orders, or of the proceedings consequent thereon, or to any of the details of the preceding paragraphs (paragraphs 1 – 7) of these reasons;
The full terms of the orders are set out in the judgment.

I grant liberty to any person to apply in respect of those orders.
Imprisonment for a non-parole period of 24 years commencing on 5 November 2013 together with a further term of 8 years imprisonment. Record as the date upon which it appears to the Court that you shall become eligible for parole, 5 November 2037
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – murder - unusual motive

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Daniel Haile
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D Patch (Crown)
Mr E Ozen (Prisoner)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Benjamin & Leonardo (Prisoner)

File Number(s): 2013/334195
Publication restriction: Yes

Judgment

During the sentencing proceedings in this matter the Crown submitted that it would be preferable if I made a non-publication order in respect of these proceedings, the basis for that submission being that a retrial of the second accused and the other of Mr Haile’s co-accused is listed to commence on 7 August 2017. Subsequently the Crown resiled from this stance but similar applications were made on behalf of two of those who were Mr Haile’s co-accused. Having received advance notice of what was sought in this regard, arrangements were made for the applications to be argued on 2 December last.
On behalf of Ms Spiteri-Ahern, the person who was the second accused in the trial before me, the order sought was to the effect:-

An order prohibiting the publication of any finding of fact as to the involvement of the second and third accused in the death of Raymond Pasnin.

On behalf of April Barber, the person who was the third accused in the trial before me, the orders sought were to the effect:-

An order be made under s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) that the name of the Applicant, the third accused, be suppressed in the judgment…

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 Haile

Details

AGLC: Decision restricted [2016] NSWSC 1732
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1732
Decision Date: 09 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Haile, the appellant was convicted of the murder of an individual. The dispute arose from the circumstances surrounding the killing, which the defence argued was not premeditated but rather the result of a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, triggered by an unusual and complex motive. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence to be imposed, given the nature of the crime, and whether the defence of provocation could be considered in the context of an unusual motive.

The court examined the evidence to determine whether the killing was premeditated or occurred in the heat of the moment. It was noted that the appellant's actions leading up to the incident indicated a degree of planning, which undermined the defence's claim of sudden and temporary loss of self-control. The court also considered the defence of provocation, which requires the defendant to establish that they were provoked to the extent that a reasonable person in their situation would have lost self-control. The court found that the unusual motive did not negate the premeditation evident in the appellant's actions, and therefore, the defence of provocation was not applicable.

The Supreme Court concluded that the killing was premeditated, and as such, the appellant was not entitled to any reduction in sentence on the grounds of provocation. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need for public protection. The decision underscores the importance of examining both the motive and the actions of the accused in determining the appropriate sentence for a crime of this nature.

Orders