Legal Research
Cases
R v Hayes

R v Hayes

Case [2001] NSWCCA 358 12 September 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Hayes [2001] NSWCCA 358

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60776/00

HEARING DATE(S): 12/9/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 September 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Gregory Peter Hayes

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1, 38; Carruthers AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/0108

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Karpin DCJ

COUNSEL : D M L Woodburne (Crown)
P R Boulten (App)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
D J Humphreys (App)

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - appeal against allegedly excessive sentence - maliciously wound with intent to do grievous bodily harm - sentence to be served in protective custody - whether sufficient allowance for plea of guilty

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

CASES CITED:
Astill (No 2) (1992) 64 A Crim R 289
Kalache [2000] NSWCCA 2
R v Costin [1989] 11 Cr App R (s) 182
R v Lo [2001] NSWCCA 271
R v Stabler [1984] 6 Cr App R (s) 129
R v Thomson & Anor (2000) 49 NSWLR 383.
Rushby (1977) 1 NSWLR 594
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465.

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal allowed. Appeal dismissed.

- 15 -IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60776/00

SULLY J

CARRUTHERS AJ

Wednesday 12 September 2001

Regina v Gregory Peter Hayes

JUDGMENT

1 SULLY J: I will ask Carruthers AJ to give the first judgment.

2 CARRUTHERS AJ: Gregory Peter Hayes seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him by her Honour Judge Karpin at the Parramatta District Court on 27 October 2000. On 21 July 2000 the applicant was arraigned on an indictment containing one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to murder under s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900 and, in the alternative, one count of maliciously wound with intent to do grievous bodily harm under s 33 of the Act. Each of these offences carries a maximum penalty of twenty-five years imprisonment.

3 The applicant pleaded not guilty to the count under s 27 but guilty to the count under s 33, which guilty plea was accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment.

4 It is convenient to note that albeit both these offences carry the same maximum penalty, the count under s 27 is, in the administration of the common law, generally understood to be a more serious offence than the offence encompassed by s 33.

5 Her Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for eleven years and eight months to commence on 14 January 2000 and to expire on 13 September 2011. Her Honour fixed a non-parole period of eight years and nine months to commence on 14 January 2000 and to expire on 13 October 2008.

6 The applicant was born on 3 January 1957. He has an unhappy history. He was only thirteen years of age when he first came before the Minda Children's Court for an offence of illegally using a motor vehicle,…

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 358
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 358
Decision Date: 12 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hayes, the defendant was convicted of maliciously wounding another person with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Hayes appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was excessive and did not take into account the benefit of his early guilty plea. The High Court of Australia was tasked with considering whether the sentence was appropriate, particularly in light of the plea of guilty, and whether the requirement for Hayes to serve his sentence in protective custody was justified.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to balance the deterrence and denunciation functions of punishment with the need to consider the offender's remorse and any mitigating factors. The court also considered the specific circumstances of the offence, including the nature and severity of the injury inflicted and the defendant's criminal history. The court acknowledged that the sentencing judge had taken into account the defendant's early guilty plea, but also noted that the severity of the offence warranted a significant sentence.

In its judgment, the court found that the sentence imposed was not excessive, and that the requirement for Hayes to serve his sentence in protective custody was justified given the risk of violence to other prisoners. The court emphasised the importance of considering the safety of other prisoners, as well as the need to deter similar offences in the future. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court made no further orders.

Orders