R v Hanlon - [2000] NSWCCA 55

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Bradley James HANLON [2000] NSWCCA 55

FILE NUMBER(S):
60299/99

HEARING DATE(S): 16/2/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 16/02/2000

PARTIES:
Regina
Bradley James Hanlon

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J Carruthers AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/31/0089

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Job DCJ

COUNSEL:
C. K. Maxwell QC - Crown
A. Webb - Appellant

SOLICITORS:
S. E. O'Connor - Crown
T. A. Murphy - Appellant

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Sentencing Act 1989
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed and sentence in Court below quashed
Re-sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years, divided between minimum term of 3 years and additional term of 2 years
The minimum term is to commence on 21 May 1999 and expire on 20 May 2002
The additional term is to commence on 21 May 2002

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60299/99

SULLY J
CARRUTHERS AJ

16 February 2000

REGINA v Bradley James HANLON

JUDGMENT

SULLY J: Mr Bradley James Hanlon applies for leave to appeal against a sentence passed on him by his Honour Judge Job QC in the Newcastle District Court on 24 May 1999.
The applicant pleaded guilty before his Honour to a charge of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death. The particular circumstance of aggravation was the presence in the applicant's blood of a concentration of alcohol greater than that permitted by the relevant provisions of the law. Such an offence attracts, upon conviction, a maximum penalty of imprisonment for fourteen years as provided by s.52A of the Crimes Act 1900.
His Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for five years apportioned between a minimum term of three years and nine months to commence on 21 May 1999 and to expire on 20 February 2003, and an accompanying additional term of one year and three months commencing on 21 February 2003.
So far as concerns the objective facts they can be stated as follows: at about 5.20pm on 3 November 1998 the prisoner was driving a particular stationwaggon along Wollombi Road towards a bridge known as Bishops Bridge. Seated beside him in the front passenger seat was his brother David Hanlon.
As the vehicle approached the bridge it was necessary to negotiate a downhill right-hand bend. In the course of negotiating that bend, as it would seem from the available material, the applicant lost control of the vehicle that he was driving. He crossed a double unbroken centre line into the lane of traffic travelling in the opposite direction. There his vehicle collided with an oncoming vehicle driven by a Mrs Neville.
Following that impact the vehicle driven by the prisoner appears to have left the road surface to have travelled down a gully, and to have come finally to rest at the bottom of the bridge. The applicant's brother, and passenger, was killed as a result of that impact. The applicant himself suffered some injuries, but they were, fortunately from his point of view,…

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 Hanlon

Details

AGLC: R v Hanlon [2000] NSWCCA 55
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 55
Decision Date: 16 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hanlon involved the respondent, Hanlon, who was convicted and sentenced for various criminal offences. The appeal against his conviction and sentence was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary focus of the appeal was on the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the lower court and whether it was proportionate to the crimes committed. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessively harsh and not reflective of the mitigating factors present in the case.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 1989, and whether the lower court had appropriately considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court was also required to consider if there were any errors in the application of the law that warranted a review of the sentence. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the sentence met the statutory objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court, in its judgment, meticulously reviewed the sentencing principles and the process followed by the lower court. It found that while the crimes were serious, the lower court had not adequately considered certain mitigating factors, which could have resulted in a lesser sentence. The court highlighted that the principles of proportionality and individualisation of sentences were not fully applied. Consequently, the High Court decided that the sentence imposed was excessive and ordered a retrial for sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of correctly balancing the statutory objectives of sentencing and ensuring that all mitigating factors are given due consideration.

Orders