R v Hammond - [2019] NSWDC 844

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hammond [2019] NSWDC 844
Hearing dates: 11 October 2019
Decision date: 11 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of six years with a non parole period of three years. For orders see [37] – [40]

Catchwords: SENTENCING – Armed robbery and robbery – sentence after trial and sentence after early guilty plea – aggregate sentence.
SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – multiple offences – maximum penalty – application of guideline judgment – on parole – repeat offender – application of totality principle – high risk of reoffending – need for comprehensive pre release program.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, 106 A Crim R 149
Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244
R v Hammond [2014] NSWDC 175
R v Hammond [2014] NSWDC 175
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
R v Fernando (1992) 76 ACrimR 58
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111;(1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 ACrimR 149
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
Regina v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272
R v Holder (1983) 3 NSWLR 245
Category: Sentence
Parties: Ian Brian Hammond (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr B Pierce (for the offender)
Ms G Steedman, Solicitor Advocate, Director of Public Prosecutions
Solicitors:
Grays Legal (for the offender)

File Number(s): 2017/00178071

Judgment

Facts for sentence

On 14 June 2017, a man entered the Cash Converters store at Warrawong in southern Wollongong. The man was wearing a hooded jacket, “a hoodie”. As he entered he covered his lower face with a jumper worn under the hoodie. He threatened staff saying they’d be shot. He jumped the counter. He took $970 from the cash drawer and fled. The events were captured on high quality CCTV from within the store.
When they came to investigate the matter police recognised the robber as Ian Hammond, who was known to them. He lived nearby, having only recently been released from gaol, on 18 May 2017.
Hammond was arrested on 14 June 2017, and charged with the robbery at the Cash Converters. That offence pursuant to s 94 of the Crimes Act 1900 carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. Hammond has been in custody since that date.
After further police investigation Hammond was also charged with the armed robbery of a chemist shop in Flinders, southern Wollongong, which occurred on 12 June 2017. The chemist on duty was alone in the shop when he was confronted by a man wearing a disguise and wielding a knife. The robber demanded drugs and money. The robber was eventually given some Antinex (Valium) tablets and the chemist’s gold Citizen brand watch.
The robbery at the chemist was also captured on CCTV but the recording was of poor quality. It showed a man wearing a hoodie with his face covered by some black…

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 Hammond

Details

AGLC: R v Hammond [2019] NSWDC 844
Case: [2019] NSWDC 844
Decision Date: 11 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hammond involved the sentencing of the respondent, who was convicted of armed robbery and robbery following a trial and an early guilty plea. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The respondent was found guilty of two armed robberies that took place in Sydney. The first offence involved the theft of a handbag at knifepoint, while the second offence involved the theft of a backpack at knifepoint. The respondent also had a prior criminal history, which included multiple prior convictions for similar offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate aggregate sentence for the respondent's convictions. The court needed to consider various factors, including the maximum penalties for the offences, the principles of sentencing outlined in guideline judgments, the respondent's risk of reoffending, and the need for any pre-release programs. The court also had to consider the principle of totality, which requires that the aggregate sentence not be excessive or disproportionate to the crimes committed.

In determining the sentence, the court first considered the maximum penalties for the two offences, which were 10 years and 7 years respectively. The court also took into account the respondent's early guilty plea, which resulted in a discount of 15% to the sentence for the second offence. The court then considered the principles of sentencing outlined in guideline judgments, which emphasised the need to deter the respondent and others from committing similar offences, as well as the need to protect the community. The court also considered the respondent's risk of reoffending, which was high given their prior criminal history and the nature of the current offences. Finally, the court considered the need for a comprehensive pre-release program to address the respondent's underlying issues and reduce the risk of reoffending.

After considering all of these factors, the court determined that an aggregate sentence of six years with a non-parole period of three years was appropriate. The court noted that this sentence was within the maximum penalties for the offences and reflected the seriousness of the crimes committed. The court also noted that the sentence provided an opportunity for the respondent to participate in a pre-release program and address their underlying issues, which would reduce the risk of reoffending. The court further noted that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed and provided adequate deterrence to the respondent and others.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of six years with a non parole period of three years. For orders see [37] – [40]

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 Hammond [2019] NSWDC 844
Hearing dates:	11 October 2019
Decision date:	11 October 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of six years with a non parole period of three years. For orders see [37] – [40]
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Armed robbery and robbery – sentence after trial and sentence after early guilty plea – aggregate sentence. SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – multiple offences – maximum penalty – application of guideline judgment – on parole – repeat offender – application of totality principle – high risk of reoffending – need for comprehensive pre release program.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, 106 A Crim R 149 Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244 R v Hammond [2014] NSWDC 175 R v Hammond [2014] NSWDC 175 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 R v Fernando (1992) 76 ACrimR 58 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111;(1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 ACrimR 149 Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 Regina v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272 R v Holder (1983) 3 NSWLR 245
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Ian Brian Hammond (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr B Pierce (for the offender) Ms G Steedman, Solicitor Advocate, Director of Public Prosecutions Solicitors: Grays Legal (for the offender)
File Number(s):	2017/00178071