R v Hall

Case [2022] NSWDC 340


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hall [2022] NSWDC 340
Hearing dates: 4/4/22-8/4/22, 12/4/22, 3/6/22, 17/6/22, 1/7/22
Date of orders: 1/7/22
Decision date: 01 July 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:

Convicted and sentence an aggregate fixed term of imprisonment of 1 year 2 months (4/10/31-3/12/32). I decline to impose a NPP.

The indicative sentences are:

Count 1 – 1 year 9 months

Count 2 - 6 months.

Catchwords:

Crime – Sentence – Indecent assault on a male person

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Culbert v R [2021] NSWCCA 38

MRW v R [2011] NSWCCA 260

R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381

R v Nelson [2106] NSWCCA 130

R v Obbens [2022] NSWCCA 109

R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8

Sarhene v R [2022] NSWCCA 79

Category:Sentence
Parties: NSW DPP – Crown
Edward Hall - Offender
Representation: Ms K Mulley for Crown
Mr T Healey for Offender
File Number(s): 2019/110683
Publication restriction: Non-publication order in relation to the victim and any witness who was a child at the time of the offences.

sentence

  1. Mr Edward Hall was found guilty after a Judge Alone trial conducted before myself at the Newcastle District Court of two offences of indecent assault on a male person. Each of those offences, which involve the now repealed s 81 of the Crimes Act 1900, carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The maximum penalties are of course important guideposts in the sentencing exercise to which I have had regard. It is now a matter for me to determine the appropriate sentence for each of these offences.

FACTS

  1. The facts of the offences are derived from the evidence at trial which is set out in summary in my verdict and reasons of 12 April 2022. The victim was born in 1959. After completing year 6 in 1971 he commenced in year 7 at St Pius Catholic School in Adamstown in 1972. At that school one of his teachers was the offender. In 1974 the victim turned 15 and was in year 9. In June of that year his family suffered a tragedy when his ten-year-old sister passed away.

  2. About three months after his sister passed away the victim was approached by the offender at school who asked if he would like to go away shooting. A couple of weeks later, around August or September 1974 the offender picked up the victim from his home in the Newcastle area and they headed off in the offender’s car. After that they drove for an hour or so to a bushland area. At that location they visited some premises where there was a male in his thirties and a younger girl. The victim and the offender slept at the house that night, the victim sleeping on a veranda area.

  3. The next morning the victim and the offender headed off in the car along a bush track for half an…

Continue reading R v Hall

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hall [2022] NSWDC 340
Case
[2022] NSWDC 340
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hall, was convicted and sentenced in the County Court of Victoria for the indecent assault of a male person. The appeal against his sentence was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appeal focused on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial judge, which was an aggregate fixed term of imprisonment of 1 year and 2 months, with a fixed non-parole period of 4 months, 10 days, and 31 hours. Hall argued that the sentence was excessive and should be reduced.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in the sentence imposed and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles of sentencing for indecent assault, the principles of totality, and the need for punishment and deterrence. The court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including his age, criminal history, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in imposing the sentence. The court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offence, and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for punishment and deterrence. The court also held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the appellant's personal circumstances. The court declined to reduce the sentence or impose a non-parole period.

The court affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, with the indicative sentences being 1 year and 9 months for count 1 and 6 months for count 2. The court declined to impose a non-parole period.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentence an aggregate fixed term of imprisonment of 1 year 2 months (4/10/31-3/12/32). I decline to impose a NPP.

The indicative sentences are:

Count 1 – 1 year 9 months

Count 2 - 6 months.

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.