R v Hammond - [2014] NSWDC 175

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hammond [2014] NSWDC 175
Hearing dates: 24 - 25 July 2014
Decision date: 25 July 2014
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period or 2½ years and a head sentence of 6 years

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Armed robbery - On parole at time of offending
Cases Cited: 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
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Ian Brian Hammond - Offender
Representation: Director of Public Prosecutions
Aboriginal Legal Service

File Number(s): 2013/347987

Sentence

HIS HONOUR: Ian Hammond is 42 years of age. When he gave evidence before me yesterday I asked him how many birthdays he had spent out of gaol since he turned 20. He told me the answer was "none". Mr Hammond has a significant history of criminal misconduct, beginning in the Children's Court and including offences of armed robbery, the offence for which Mr Hammond must now be sentenced today. Indeed, at the time he committed the armed robbery for which I must sentence him he was on parole for an offence of armed robbery, having been released from custody a mere two days earlier. Mr Hammond demonstrates a continuing attitude of disobedience towards the law such that retribution and protection of society need to play an important part in the sentence I will impose upon him.

Mr Hammond, leading up to his release from parole, was hoping to go to Brewarrina. He had family there and had plans for the future, but upon his release he was told that that could not happen and he was placed in a halfway house. Very shortly afterwards he met up with someone, consumed drugs and committed the offence I am about to describe.

A Mr Brandon McDonald was walking home from work late on Monday 18 November 2013. The offender approached him and asked him for some money. Mr McDonald gave him some money but then the offender turned towards Mr McDonald and said, "I have a knife here, give me your wallet." Mr McDonald saw that the offender was holding a knife. He could see about 4 or 5 centimetres of the blade protruding from Mr Hammond's hand. Sensibly, Mr McDonald threw his wallet onto the ground and shouted, "Get away from me." Mr Hammond appeared not to have noticed because he repeated his demand but Mr McDonald emphasised that he had already thrown the wallet away and pointed it out on the road. At this, Mr Hammond picked up the wallet and walked away.

Mr McDonald then called police. When they arrived Mr McDonald got in the police car and they drove around the area. Eventually they found someone who looked like the man who had just robbed Mr McDonald. Police officers approached him. Mr Hammond, because…

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 [2014] NSWDC 175
Case: [2014] NSWDC 175
Decision Date: 25 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hammond, the defendant, who was already on parole at the time of the offence, was convicted of armed robbery. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant, considering the specific circumstances of his parole status at the time of the offence.

The court was required to determine the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation, particularly given the defendant's prior criminal history and his status as a parolee. The legal considerations included the need for general deterrence, the protection of society, and the potential for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the parole status at the time of the offence warranted any particular weight in the sentencing process.

The Supreme Court, after weighing the factors, found that the defendant's prior criminal history and the seriousness of the current offence warranted a custodial sentence. However, the court also recognised the need for rehabilitation and the potential for the defendant to contribute positively to society upon release. The sentence imposed consisted of a non-parole period of 2½ years, followed by a head sentence of 6 years, allowing for the possibility of early release based on good behaviour and rehabilitation efforts. This decision reflects the court's aim to balance punitive measures with the potential for the defendant to reintegrate into society in a law-abiding manner.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period or 2½ years and a head sentence of 6 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 Hammond [2014] NSWDC 175
Hearing dates:	24 - 25 July 2014
Decision date:	25 July 2014
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period or 2½ years and a head sentence of 6 years
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Armed robbery - On parole at time of offending
Cases Cited:	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
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Ian Brian Hammond - Offender
Representation:	Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service
File Number(s):	2013/347987