Legal Research
Cases
R v Hanslow

R v Hanslow

Case [2004] NSWCCA 163 21 May 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Hanslow [2004] NSWCCA 163

HEARING DATE(S): 11/05/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 May 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 1; Adams J at 2; Howie J at 3

DECISION: Leave to appeal is granted but appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Sentencing - Discount for plea of guilty - relevance of matters on Form 1 to total criminality of offences for which sentence was passed.

LEGISLATION CITED: Justices Act 1902 - s 51A (now repealed)
Crimes Act 1900 - ss 178BA, 178BB, 188, 300(1), 302
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED: R v Doan (2000 50 NSWLR 115
R v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 286
R v Newman [2004] NSWCCA 113
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Fraser [2000] NSWCCA 97
R v Montesinos [2002] NSWCCA 470

PARTIES :
Regina v Renee Catherine Hanslow

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60504/03

COUNSEL: B. Knox SC - Crown
R. Burgess - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
S. O'Connor - Applicant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/31/0145

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Freeman DCJ

60504/03

DUNFORD J
ADAMS J
HOWIE J
FRIDAY 21 MAY 2004

REGINA v RENEE CATHERINE HANSLOW

Judgment

1 DUNFORD J: I agree with Howie J.

2 ADAMS J: I agree with the judgment of Howie J.

3 HOWIE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by Judge Freeman in the District Court in respect of a large number of offences of dishonesty. The applicant had pleaded guilty before a magistrate under, the now repealed, s 51A of the Justices Act to 45 offences under three different provisions of the Crimes Act. She was committed to the District Court for sentence on those matters. She adhered to her pleas before Judge Freeman and asked him to take into account, when sentencing her in respect of one group of offences, 60 matters on a form 1 under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.

4 The offences for which the applicant was sentenced were as follows:

(i) six charges of dishonestly obtaining money by deception contrary to s 178BA of the Crimes Act. This is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years.

(ii) ten offences of making a false statement to obtain a financial advantage contrary to s 178BB of the Crimes Act. This is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years.

(iii) three charges of disposing stolen property contrary to s 188 of the Crimes Act . This is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years.

(iv) 25 offences of making a false instrument contrary to s 300(1) of the Crimes Act . This is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years.

Crimes Act.

5 The form 1 contained the…

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 Hanslow

Details

AGLC: R v Hanslow [2004] NSWCCA 163
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 163
Decision Date: 21 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the defendant, Hanslow, against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The defendant had been convicted of various offences, including armed robbery, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Hanslow argued that the sentence was excessive and that the sentencing judge had not properly considered the discount for his plea of guilty. The appeal was heard in the higher court, which was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in law or failed to take into account relevant mitigating factors.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the discount for the defendant's plea of guilty and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court had to examine the totality of the defendant's criminality, including the matters disclosed on Form 1, and determine whether these factors warranted a reduced sentence. Additionally, the court was tasked with assessing whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances, taking into account the gravity of the offences committed.

The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in not adequately considering the discount for the defendant's plea of guilty. The judge had failed to appropriately weigh the totality of the defendant's criminality, including the matters on Form 1, in determining the appropriate sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that a more lenient sentence should have been imposed, reflecting the discount for the plea of guilty. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and remitted the matter to the lower court for resentencing.

The higher court ordered that the matter be remitted to the lower court for resentencing, with directions that the sentencing judge take into account the appropriate discount for the defendant's plea of guilty and the totality of his criminality. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence and directed that the resentencing take place within a specified timeframe.

Orders