R v Hansen

Case [2021] NSWDC 457


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hansen [2021] NSWDC 457
Hearing dates: 19, 23 February 2021 & 01 March 2021
Date of orders: 04 June 2021
Decision date: 04 June 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:

For the State offences: an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 2 months

For the Commonwealth offences: an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 17 years with a non-parole period of 12 years

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes Act 1914 (C’th)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Criminal Code 1995 (C’th)

Customs Act 1901 (C’th)

Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:

Bae v R [2020] NSWCCA 35

Betka v R [2020] NSWCCA 191

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1

Director of Public Prosecutions (C’th) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1

DPP v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301

Fasciale v R [2010] 30 VR 643

Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29

Hilli v R, Jones v R [2010] HCA 45

Huang aka Liu v R [2018] NSWCCA 70

Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144

Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140

Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39

Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305

R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102

R v Clarkson [2011] 32 VR 361

R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174

R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353

Sheu v R [2018] NSWCCA 86

Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247

The Queen v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; (1981) 147 CLR 383

Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) HCA 14

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Peter Andrew Hansen (Offender)
Representation:

Jennifer Single SC (Crown)
Talia Epstein (Junior)

Alex Radojev (Counsel for the Offender)

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Victor Lawyers (solicitors for the Offender)
File Number(s): 2018/00304908, 2018/00308763 & 2019/00314711
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication order for the identities of the victims and any information which might cause their identities to be ascertained

REVISED JudgEment

Introduction

  1. These are the sentence proceedings in respect of Peter Andrew Hansen.  They are continuing today for the purposes of judgement and the imposition of sentence.

  2. Peter Andrew Hansen appeared for sentence in the District Court of New South Wales, Sydney, on Friday February 19, 2021 whereupon he confirmed his pleas of guilty to 31 offences, which, with the specified maximum penalties, are particularised in a table that appears below.

  3. After the Crown and defence bundles were tendered, to accommodate the convenience of psychiatrist Dr Olav Nielssen to be called in the offender's case, the proceedings were adjourned to Tuesday, February 23, 2021 when he was available to attend court.

The Proceedings

  1. Unfortunately, through no fault of the parties or the Court there has been some limited delay until the resolution of the proceedings today to allow medical treatment that I was required to undergo, and predominantly because of a trial which extended to six weeks longer than the original estimate…

Continue reading R v Hansen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hansen [2021] NSWDC 457
Case
[2021] NSWDC 457
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, Hansen, was before the Court of Appeal following a conviction for a series of violent criminal activities including assault, aggravated burglary, and drug-related offences. The appeal was against the severity of the sentences imposed by the lower court. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court were the appropriateness of the sentences imposed on Hansen, both in terms of the overall length and the non-parole periods. The court needed to consider whether the sentences were excessive or manifestly inadequate in the circumstances. The court also considered whether the sentences reflected the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, the degree of culpability, and the overall impact on the victims. It held that while the severity of the sentences was substantial, it was not manifestly inadequate. The court took into account the cumulative effect of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The court was satisfied that the sentences imposed were commensurate with the gravity of the offences and the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

For the State offences: an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 2 months

For the Commonwealth offences: an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 17 years with a non-parole period of 12 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.