Legal Research
Cases
R v Haines (No.3)

R v Haines (No.3)

Case [2016] NSWSC 1812 16 December 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Haines (No.3) [2016] NSWSC 1812
Hearing dates: 7 December 2016
Date of orders: 16 December 2016
Decision date: 16 December 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Impose an aggregate sentence comprising a non‑parole period of imprisonment of 27 years commencing on 7 July 2014 and concluding on 6 July 2041, with a balance of term of 9 years commencing on 7 July 2041 and concluding on 6 July 2050.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – two offences of murder – where offences took place in the homes of the victims, the offender abused a position of trust, and the victims were elderly – whether objective seriousness of offending falls within the worst category – whether offender’s subjective case calls for mitigation of sentence – importance of deterrence and denunciation – whether aggregate sentence should be imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; (2001) 209 CLR 1
Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606
Madden v R [2011] NSWCCA 254
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57 (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Harris [2000] NSWCCA 469; (2000) 121 A Crim R 342
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v MacDonell (NSWCCA, 8 December 1995, unreported)
R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19; (2004) 59 NSWLR 557
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Megan Jean Haines (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Campbell (Crown)
T Edwards (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/197832
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 10 May 2014, the offender, Megan Haines, while employed as a registered nurse at the St Andrews Aged Care facility in Ballina (“St Andrews”), murdered Isabella Spencer and Marie Darragh, who were residents there.
The offender did so by injecting each of them with insulin in circumstances where neither Ms Spencer nor Ms Darragh was insulin dependent. As a result of the insulin injection, both Ms Spencer and Ms Darragh fell into a hypoglycaemic coma, suffered irreversible brain damage, and died.
The offender was arrested in Victoria on 7 July 2014. She was extradited to New South Wales and has been in custody ever since.
When arraigned in the Supreme Court on 6 May 2016, and again at the commencement of her trial on 17 October 2016, the offender entered a plea of not guilty to two counts of murder. On 3 November 2016, after the conclusion…

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 Haines (No.3)

Details

AGLC: R v Haines (No.3) [2016] NSWSC 1812
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1812
Decision Date: 16 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Haines (No.3), the accused was convicted of two offences of murder. The killings took place in the homes of the victims, both of whom were elderly. The accused abused a position of trust in relation to one of the victims, while the other victim was known to the accused. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the sentencing of the accused was under consideration.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the objective seriousness of the offences fell within the worst category and whether the accused's personal circumstances warranted any mitigation of the sentence. The court also considered the importance of deterrence and denunciation in sentencing, as well as the need to impose an aggregate sentence that was commensurate with the gravity of the crimes committed. The accused had pleaded guilty to both charges, but the court was required to weigh the various aggravating and mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the heinous nature of the crimes, noting the vulnerability of the victims and the breach of trust by the accused. The court found that the objective seriousness of the offending warranted a sentence within the worst category. While the accused's personal circumstances and the absence of a prior criminal record were considered, they did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of the crimes. The court held that the importance of deterrence and denunciation required a severe sentence, and the need for an aggregate sentence was necessary to reflect the totality of the offending. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 30 years.

Orders