R v Hannah Quinn (No 1) - [2021] NSWSC 493

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hannah Quinn (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 493
Hearing dates: 26 February and 23 April 2021
Date of orders: 7 May 2021
Decision date: 07 May 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
See [99].

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – remarks on sentence – accessory after the fact to manslaughter by excessive self –defence – where offender was the victim of a home invasion – where deceased was killed by offender’s boyfriend as the deceased attempted to escape – where offender accompanied boyfriend for three days before going to police – strong subjective case – Community Corrections Order imposed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 24, 350
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 8, 21A

Cases Cited:
Ferris v R [2020] NSWCCA 325
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Aljubouri; R v YA; R v Shaker [2019] NSWSC 180
R v Blake Davis [2021] NSWSC 235
R v Davis and Quinn (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1800
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v Wran [2016] NSWSC 1015
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
TT v R [2014] NSWCCA 206

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Hannah Quinn (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr C Taylor/ Ms G Edwards (Crown)
Mr T Hughes (Hannah Quinn)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
MacDougall & Hydes Lawyers (Hannah Quinn)

File Number(s): 2018/248991
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

As at 10 August 2018, Hannah Quinn was a 25-year-old waitress who had recently commenced early childhood studies. Her boyfriend Blake Davis lived at 87A Hereford Street in Glebe. They were both daily users of cannabis. They were also sellers of cannabis. Neither of them had any criminal record nor any history of violence. Apart from their involvement in the supply of cannabis neither of them had ever been involved in any other criminal activity.
On that day, Ms Quinn awoke at about midday in the home of Mr Davis. It was a sunny day. She walked to a nearby café to get takeaway breakfast for them both before returning to Mr Davis’ home. There were a number of people in Hereford Street at about this time. It is a narrow street comprised mainly of terrace houses. There were people walking in the street. Some were inside their homes studying or watching television. Others were working on building sites as a number of the terraces were undergoing renovations at that time. Everyone was just going on with their everyday lives.
Ms Quinn could never have anticipated at that time that within minutes her life would be changed forever, that she and Mr…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Hannah Quinn (No 1) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWSC 493
Decision Date: 07 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hannah Quinn, was charged with being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter by excessive self-defence. The deceased was killed by the appellant’s boyfriend during an attempted escape from a home invasion. The appellant accompanied her boyfriend for three days before reporting the incident to the police. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was asked to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant’s role in the crime.

The court was required to consider the appellant’s subjective circumstances and the degree to which she was influenced by her boyfriend. The court also had to assess the appropriate sentence for the offence of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter by excessive self-defence, taking into account the appellant’s involvement in the crime and the circumstances surrounding the incident. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the appellant’s role in the crime and whether a community corrections order was an appropriate sentence.

The court found that the appellant had a strong subjective case, as she was a victim of a home invasion and was under the influence of her boyfriend. The court recognised the appellant’s early guilty plea, her cooperation with the police, and her remorse for her actions. The court also considered the appellant’s vulnerability and the impact of the crime on her. The court ultimately decided that a community corrections order was an appropriate sentence, taking into account the appellant’s role in the crime and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court imposed a community corrections order on the appellant, with specific conditions aimed at addressing her offending behaviour and promoting her rehabilitation.

In light of the above, the court ordered that the appellant be subject to a community corrections order for a period of two years, with specific conditions aimed at addressing her offending behaviour and promoting her rehabilitation. The court also ordered that the appellant be subject to a supervision order and a curfew for a period of six months. The appellant was further ordered to attend a rehabilitation program and to refrain from contacting any of the victims or witnesses in the case.

Orders