Legal Research
Cases
R v Hayes

R v Hayes

Case [2001] NSWCCA 410 10 October 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Hayes [2001] NSWCCA 410

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60223/00

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 10 October 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 October 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Jon Charles Hayes

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Howie J at 17

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/31/0403

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Job DCJ

COUNSEL : P.G. Bergman (Crown)
In person (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - SENTENCE - SEXUAL OFFENCES - "RANGE" - COMMENT ON PUBLISHED SENTENCE STATISTICS AND THEIR USE

DECISION: APPEAL DISMISSED

60223/00

GROVE J

HOWIE J

REGINA v JON CHARLES HAYES

JUDGMENT

1 GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of sentence imposed by Job DCJ in the Gosford District Court.

2 The applicant was born in 1942 and is therefore fifty nine years of age. The offences occurred in a range of time between 1984 and 1985. He was sentenced in respect of eleven counts of a variety of sexual offences against two victims. The precise details of the offences are set out in Job DCJ’s remarks on sentence and there is no need for repetition.

3 The applicant has in response to the Registrar’s direction provided some submissions in writing in relation to this appeal to which I will in due course turn. Upon receipt of written submissions on behalf of the Crown he has supplemented what he had earlier written with some further material.

4 I should observe that the effect of the various sentences imposed in respect of the eleven counts is a total of a six year term with a minimum term of four years.

5 The other matter which should be the subject of initial observation is that although the offences occurred many years before the applicant was dealt with, he was at the time, in respect of a large number of them, either on bail or subject to a recognizance granted to him by the late O’Brien J in respect of a separate offence of a sexual nature.

6 Again, it is not necessary to detail that matter but they are aggravating circumstances, that the applicant was either on bail or upon conditional liberty when the offences were committed.

7 I turn to the matter set out in the applicant’s written submissions.

8 I should say at the outset that the submissions display a lack of appreciation of the nature of the jurisdiction of this Court. The applicant has in moving terms sought that the Court be merciful. This Court is not vested with jurisdiction to impose original sentence. This is what is described as a court of error and not a court of review. It is necessary for there to be demonstrated error in the proceedings at first instance before the jurisdiction of this Court is enlivened. In short, it is not available to judges of this Court, in the event that they differed from the view expressed in a court below, simply to…

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 [2001] NSWCCA 410
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 410
Decision Date: 10 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hayes was before the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the defendant, Hayes, was convicted of sexual offences. The central issue in this case was the appropriateness of the sentence handed down by the trial judge. Hayes was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and the prosecution argued that the sentence was too lenient in light of the severity of the offences and the sentencing statistics available at the time.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in the application of the sentencing principles and whether the published sentence statistics were appropriately considered in determining the appropriate sentence. The prosecution argued that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence, while Hayes contended that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in sentencing.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in the application of sentencing principles. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the severity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. While the prosecution argued that the published sentence statistics should have been given more weight, the court found that the trial judge had correctly considered the individual circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing. The court ultimately determined that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not constitute a significant error of law.

No further orders were made by the court. The conviction and sentence of the defendant were upheld.

Orders