Stein JA at 1,21,26; Hulme J at 2,25; Greg James J at 23
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Latham DCJ
COUNSEL:
R A Hulme -Crown P M Skinner - Appellant
SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor - Crown T A Murphy - Appellant
CATCHWORDS:
DECISION:
Application for leave to appeal refused.
- 12 -
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 60013/99
STEIN JA HULME J GREG JAMES
Monday 25 October 1999
REGINA v Julie Ann HAMPTON
JUDGMENT
1 STEIN JA: The Court is in a position to give judgment in this matter. I would ask Justice Hulme to give the first judgment of the Court.
2 HULME J: On 23 October 1998 her Honour Judge Latham sentenced this applicant for leave to appeal, on one count to a minimum term of two years, three months penal servitude dating from 26 February 1998, and an additional term of nine months, and in respect of a second count on the indictment before her Honour, to a fixed term of penal servitude for one year from 26 February 1998.
3 The charges against the applicant were of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Apart from those two charges, her Honour was asked to take into account one further charge of a similar nature and one of common assault.
4 The circumstances of the offence and offender, and the approach which her Honour said she was taking, appear with commendable brevity and clarity from her Honour's remarks, which were as follows:-
"Julie Ann Hampton pleaded guilty before me on 17 August 1998 to two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and has requested that a further two matters be taken into account on a Form 2.
The offences arose out of an association between the prisoner and two women, namely Mary Ann Turner and Cheryl Waight. The three women met by chance on the morning of 31 December 1997 in Glebe where an argument developed and a struggle took place between the prisoner and Ms Turner. The prisoner punched Ms Turner to her face, head and body, resulting in scratching and bruising. Those injuries are the subject of the second count in the indictment.
Ms Waight came to Ms Turner's assistance. Shortly thereafter the ignition keys from Ms Waight's motor vehicle were removed and came into the prisoner's possession. The prisoner was followed by Ms Turner and Ms Waight in an attempt to have the keys returned. The prisoner threw the keys onto the roadway. While Ms Waight was in the act of retrieving the keys the prisoner produced a knife and Ms Waight sustained two stab wounds to the back in the course of a further assault by the prisoner Those injuries are the subject of the first count in the indictment.
Ms Waight grappled with…
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 Hampton
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Hampton [1999] NSWCCA 341
Case
[1999] NSWCCA 341
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Regina v Hampton was an appeal against sentence heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. Julie Ann Hampton was sentenced by Judge Latham DCJ in the District Court to a minimum term of two years, three months, and an additional term of nine months for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and a fixed term of one year for another count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Hampton appealed against sentence claiming that Judge Latham erred in taking into account the extent of the injuries and in imposing an excessive sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's approach or in the sentence imposed. The court found that the sentence was within the range of sentences for similar offences and that the applicant's criminal history warranted a severe sentence. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.
The legal issues in this case were whether the sentencing judge erred in taking into account the extent of the injuries when imposing sentence and whether the sentence was excessive. The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentencing judge was entitled to have regard to the extent of the injuries suffered by the victims, as long as the judge did not also consider the question of malice. The court also found that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences for similar offences and did not constitute an error of principle or an impermissible result. The court dismissed the appeal against sentence.