Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hammond [2020] NSWSC 888 Hearing dates: 9 July 2020 Date of orders: 10 July 2020 Decision date: 10 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Payne J Decision: (1) an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years is imposed;
(2) under s 19AB(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) a single non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months is fixed;
(3) the sentence and non-parole period to date from 9 July 2020. The head sentence expires on 8 July 2024. The offender is first eligible for parole on 8 January 2023.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – federal offenders – conspiracy to cause loss to the Commonwealth –
money laundering conspiracy – aggregate sentence – objective seriousness just below the mid-range – significant loss to the Commonwealth – persistent course of conduct – early plea of guilty – [redacted] – excellent prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Pt IB, ss 16A(1), 16A(2), [redacted], 17A, 19AB(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), s 53A
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Schedule ss 11.5(1), 135.4(3), 400.3(1)
Evidence Act1995 (NSW), s 191
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), ss 320(b), 320(d)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301; (2017) 270 A Crim R 556
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1; [2011] VSCA 145
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Issakidis v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 302
Kristensen v R [2018] NSWCCA 189
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Putland v The Queen (2008) 218 CLR 174; [2004] HCA 8
R v Agius; R v Zerafa [2012] NSWSC 978; (2012) 87 ATR 528
R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268
R v Glynatsis [2013] NSWCCA 131; (2013) 230 A Crim R 99
R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430
R v Huang; R v Siu [2007] NSWCCA 259; (2007) 174 A Crim R 370
R v Issakidis [2018] NSWSC 378
R v Ly [2014] NSWCCA 78; (2014) 241 A Crim R 192
R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534; (2000) 117 A Crim R 497
R v O’Leary (District Court (NSW), 4 June 2020, unrep)
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v Paul (District Court (NSW), 21 February 2020, unrep)
Tyler v R; R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247; (2007) 173 A Crim R 458
Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Devyn Michelle Hammond (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
R Sharp (Crown)
C Smith SC (Offender)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Morrisons Law (Offender)
File Number(s): 2017/148649 Publication…
Continue reading R v Hammond
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Decision restricted [2020] NSWSC 888
- Case
- [2020] NSWSC 888
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate aggregate sentence for Hammond's offences. The court had to consider the objective seriousness of the crimes, which was just below the mid-range, as well as the significant loss to the Commonwealth and the persistent course of conduct exhibited by Hammond. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the mitigating factors, including Hammond's early guilty plea and his excellent prospects for rehabilitation.
In delivering its judgment, the court first considered the objective seriousness of the crimes, which, while not at the highest end of the scale, was nonetheless significant. The court noted the substantial loss to the Commonwealth and the persistent nature of Hammond's criminal conduct. However, the court also acknowledged the mitigating factors, such as Hammond's early guilty plea and his prospects for rehabilitation. Balancing these considerations, the court determined that an aggregate sentence just below the mid-range was appropriate. This reflected the objective seriousness of the crimes while also taking into account the mitigating factors.
The court's final orders were that Hammond be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with an aggregate sentence just below the mid-range, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes, the loss to the Commonwealth, and Hammond's prospects for rehabilitation. The court also noted that the sentence should allow for the possibility of parole, given Hammond's early guilty plea and his prospects for rehabilitation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.