R v Hale - [2020] NSWDC 684

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hale [2020] NSWDC 684
Hearing dates: 09 October 2020
Date of orders: 09 October 2020
Decision date: 09 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years

Catchwords:
CRIME — Driving offences
CRIME — Property offences — Take and drive a conveyance
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Purposes of sentencing
TRAFFIC LAW AND TRANSPORT — Traffic law — Licensing of drivers — Disqualification

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999
Criminal Procedure Act1986
Road Transport Act2013

Cases Cited:
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
ImbornonevR [2017] NSWCCA 144
MuldrockvR [2011] HCA 39
Rv Henry [1999] NSWCCA 107
RvQutami [2001] NSWCCA 353

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Aaron Michael Hale (Offender)
Representation:
Josephine Menzies (Crown)

Ljupka Subeska (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Astoria Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/00006498

Revised Ex Tempore Judgement

Introduction

Aaron Michael Hale is before the Court today for sentence in respect of four offences, two of them are before the Court after he was committed for sentence from the Local Court where he pleaded guilty. The other two are before the Court pursuant to s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986. They are summary offences which by reason of that provision may be dealt with contemporaneously with the indictable offences.

Pleas

In respect of the two indictable offences the offender confirmed he pleaded guilty in the Local Court and acknowledged his guilt in respect of those offences before me. For the two summary offences when the charges were read, in each case he pleaded guilty.
The second of the indictable offences is one of take and drive conveyance without the consent of the owner. There was initial reticence on the part of the offender when I read that charge to him to have his confirmation. His representation in terms was that he did not take the motorcycle but it was provided to him by another without the consent of the owner whereupon he took the opportunity to ride it in the commission of the other indictable offence with which I am concerned.
I understand his plea of guilty to the charge of take and drive conveyance is upon that premise. By acknowledging his guilt In respect of that offence he admits all of the elements established by his conduct reflected in the agreed statement of facts and what I understand to be his position.

Penalties

The first offence upon which sentence is to be imposed is the charge of not stop during a police pursuit and drive in a manner dangerous. This is a second major offence, contrary to s 51B(1) Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years. There is an automatic period of disqualification of five…

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 Hale

Details

AGLC: R v Hale [2020] NSWDC 684
Case: [2020] NSWDC 684
Decision Date: 09 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Hale, faced charges of multiple driving and property offences in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Hale was charged with taking and driving a conveyance without consent, possessing a device to disable security systems, and possessing stolen property. The prosecution alleged that Hale had been involved in a series of incidents involving the unlawful use of vehicles and the possession of stolen goods. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these offences, considering the principles of sentencing and the purposes of punishment, including deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and denunciation.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to be given to the multiple offences and the principles of sentencing that should guide the decision. The court had to consider whether the sentences for the offences should be aggregated or whether they should be dealt with separately. Additionally, the court was required to determine the appropriate length of the sentence, taking into account the purposes of sentencing, such as deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and denunciation.

The court found that the offences were sufficiently serious to warrant an aggregate sentence. It considered that the offences demonstrated a pattern of criminal behaviour that warranted a strong message of denunciation. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the community and deterring others from engaging in similar conduct. The court also noted the need for rehabilitation, but found that the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence outweighed the potential for rehabilitation in this case. The court ultimately determined that an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 3 months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of 2 years. This sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years

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 Hale [2020] NSWDC 684
Hearing dates:	09 October 2020
Date of orders:	09 October 2020
Decision date:	09 October 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years
Catchwords:	CRIME — Driving offences CRIME — Property offences — Take and drive a conveyance SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Purposes of sentencing TRAFFIC LAW AND TRANSPORT — Traffic law — Licensing of drivers — Disqualification
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 Criminal Procedure Act1986 Road Transport Act2013
Cases Cited:	Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 ImbornonevR [2017] NSWCCA 144 MuldrockvR [2011] HCA 39 Rv Henry [1999] NSWCCA 107 RvQutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Aaron Michael Hale (Offender)
Representation:	Josephine Menzies (Crown) Ljupka Subeska (Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Astoria Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2020/00006498