R v Hayes - [2002] NSWCCA 237

CITATION: R v Hayes [2002] NSWCCA 237

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60432/01

HEARING DATE(S): 18 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina (NSW)
Scott Warren Hayes (Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 1; Adams J at 24

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/31/0088

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : English DCJ

COUNSEL : WG Dawe QC (Crown)
PJD Hamill (Applicant)

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

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - armed robbery - blood filled syringe

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 97(1)

CASES CITED:
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111, 46 NSWLR 346
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28
R v Thomson [2000] NSWCCA 305

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced.

60432/01

DUNFORD J
ADAMS J
Tuesday, 18 JUNE 2002

R v Scott Warren HAYES

Judgment

1 Dunford J: This is an application for leave to appeal by Scott Warren Hayes against the sentence imposed on him by English DCJ in the District Court at Gosford on 22 June 2001 following his plea of guilty to one count of armed robbery contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, an offence which attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. The sentence imposed by her Honour was imprisonment for a term of 4 years, commencing on 7 July 2001 with a non-parole period of 3 years.

2 The facts of the matter were that at about 8.20pm on Monday, 26 February 2001 the applicant and a co-offender, Joel Kenneth Griffin, were driving along The Entrance Road, Erina. They were long standing friends and the applicant was suffering the effects of heroin withdrawal. He asked the co-offender, who was driving the vehicle, to pull over to the side of the road near the Mobil Service Station. The applicant then entered the service station armed with a blood filled syringe and disguised by pulling a hood over his head which had eyeholes cut into it. During a subsequent interview the applicant stated that he had cut the holes in the hood and filled the syringe with blood earlier that evening in case he needed to do a robbery.

3 The applicant entered the service station and demanded cash from the console operator, using the syringe as a threat to the operator. The operator handed the applicant $300 and thereupon he quickly left the shop. He ran to where the co-offender was still waiting, got into the car and told the other man to go.

4 The applicant also said in the interview that he told the co-offender that he had just robbed the service station and to drive to a nearby caravan park in Avoca Drive so that he could hide the clothes he had used in the robbery. The co-offender did so, whereupon the applicant placed his clothes in a clothing bin at Green Point. They then drove to Forrester’s Beach where the applicant made a number of telephone…

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 Hayes

Details

AGLC: R v Hayes [2002] NSWCCA 237
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 237
Decision Date: 18 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hayes involved the defendant being charged with armed robbery. The defendant was found guilty of robbing a pharmacy at gunpoint and was armed with a blood-filled syringe. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for the defendant's crime. The court had to consider the severity of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

The court held that the crime was of significant seriousness due to the use of a weapon, which in this case was a blood-filled syringe, creating a high risk of transmitting serious diseases. The defendant's criminal history, which included previous offences of a violent nature, was also considered. The court concluded that the defendant's actions demonstrated a high level of premeditation and a disregard for the safety and well-being of others. The court found that the sentencing should reflect the gravity of the crime and the need to deter similar offences in the future.

The court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the principles of proportionality and deterrence. The specific length of the sentence was not detailed in the summary, but the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. The court also noted the need to protect the community from further harm by the defendant. The final orders of the court included the defendant's imprisonment and a requirement to comply with any additional conditions imposed by the court, such as rehabilitation programs or supervision orders.

Orders