Legal Research
Cases
R v Hansen

R v Hansen

Case [2002] NSWCCA 321 14 August 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Hansen [2002] NSWCCA 321

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60206/01

HEARING DATE(S): 20 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 August 2002

PARTIES :

Regina (NSW)
Euon Arne Hansen (Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 28

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/3003

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : The late Acting Judge Ford QC

COUNSEL : GIO Rowling (Crown)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)
DJ Humphreys (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - severity - robbery in company - sentences imposed not expressed in form required by statute - power of Court of Criminal Appeal to re-sentence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Justices Act 1902, s 51A
Crimes Act 1900, ss 33B(a), 94, 97(1)
Sentencing Act 1989, ss 5, 6
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 43, 44, 45
Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 6(3)

CASES CITED:
R v Carrion [2000] NSWCCA 191, 49 NSWLR 149
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111, 46 NSWLR 346
R v Thomson [2000] NSWCCA 309, 49 NSWLR 383
R v Stone (1995) 85 A Crim R 436
R v Morgan (1993) 78 A Crim R 368
R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, sentences quashed, applicant re-sentenced. See para 27.

60206/01

DUNFORD J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Wednesday, 14 AUGUST 2002

R v Euon Arne HANSEN

Judgment

1 Dunford J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by the late Acting Judge Ford QC in the District Court at Campbelltown on 6 April 2000, following the Applicant’s pleas of guilty before the Magistrate and committal for sentence pursuant to s 51A of the Justices Act 1902.

2 The charges were two counts of robbery in company contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for 20 years, one count of robbery contrary to s 94 of the Crimes Act which carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for 14 years, and one count of use offensive weapon to prevent lawful apprehension contrary to s 33B(a) of the Crimes Act which carries a maximum penalty of 12 years. There was also a matter on the Form 1 of resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty.

3 The two robberies in company were committed on 27 April and 25 May 1999, both at the Caltex Service Station at Minto. The robbery was at the Five Star Supermarket at Bradbury on 18 July 1999 and the use of the offensive weapon to prevent lawful apprehension occurred later that same day when the Applicant was chased and caught following the robbery.

4 The facts of various matters were as follows. On Tuesday 27 April 1999 at about 12.10 am the console operator at Minto Caltex Service Station saw three males walking towards the store, one of whom was the Applicant. They entered the store and after a time the console operator walked over to serve the Applicant and the other male, and…

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 Hansen

Details

AGLC: R v Hansen [2002] NSWCCA 321
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 321
Decision Date: 14 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of R v Hansen, the respondent was convicted of robbery in company. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was tasked with assessing the sentences imposed by the lower court. The Crown had appealed against the leniency of the sentences, arguing they were not in accordance with the statutory requirements for such a serious offence. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the original sentences were appropriate and did not warrant any alteration.

The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether it had the authority to re-sentence the respondent when the sentences imposed by the lower court were not expressed in the form mandated by statute. This raised questions about the scope of the Court's power to ensure that sentences conform to legislative directives and the extent to which it could independently determine the severity of a penalty. The Court had to navigate the statutory framework governing sentencing and the principles of judicial review in the context of criminal appeals.

The Court of Criminal Appeal determined that it did indeed possess the power to re-sentence the respondent, even though the original sentences were not expressed in the required statutory form. The Court emphasised that ensuring compliance with legislative mandates was fundamental to the sentencing process and that the Court had a duty to rectify any non-compliance. In re-sentencing the respondent, the Court imposed penalties that aligned with the statutory requirements and considered the seriousness of the offence. This decision underscored the importance of adherence to legislative provisions in sentencing and the role of appellate courts in upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Orders