R v Hazelwood - [2021] NSWDC 88

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hazelwood [2021] NSWDC 88
Hearing dates: 4 March 2021
Decision date: 25 March 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [130]

Catchwords:
Multiple offences of break, enter and steal; delay in sentencing whilst serving a sentence of imprisonment interstate; aggregate sentence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70
RO v R [2019] NSWCCA 183
R v Blanco [1999] NSWCCA 121
R v Harris (2007) 171 A Crim R 267; [2007] NSWCCA 130
R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327; [1999] NSWCCA 435
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
Watts v R [2007] NSWCCA 153

Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Tony Glen Hazelwood (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Solicitors:
D Pace (Crown)
T Spohr (Offender)

File Number(s): 18/136383
Publication restriction: Nil

remarks on sentence

The offender is to be sentenced in respect of the following offences to which he has entered pleas of guilty:

Sequence 2 – Break, enter and steal, an offence pursuant to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which occurred on 26 May 2006 at Carnarvon Golf Club.

Sequence 19 - Break, enter and steal, an offence pursuant to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, that occurred on 21 November 2014 at the Beverley Hills Hotel.

Sequence 20 - Break, enter and steal, an offence pursuant to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which occurred on 12 December 2014 at the Beverley Hills Hotel.

Sequence 21 - Break, enter and steal, an offence pursuant to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which occurred on 10 January 2015 at the Brewhouse Hotel, Marayong.

Sequence 24 - Break, enter and steal, an offence pursuant to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which occurred on 17 January 2015 at the Blacktown Inn.

Sequence 25 – Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence, an offence pursuant to s 113(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which occurred on 27 March 2015 at the Vikings Sports Club, Dundas.

Sequence 35 - Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence, an offence pursuant to s 113(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which occurred on 25 April 2015 at the Collector Hotel, Parramatta.

The offences in Sequences 2, 19, 20, 21, and 24, pursuant to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

The offences in Sequences 25 and 35, pursuant to s 113(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. There is no Standard Non-Parole Period applicable to any of the offences.

Attached to Sequence 19, is a Form 1 (referred to as “Form 1A”) in respect…

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 Hazelwood

Details

AGLC: R v Hazelwood [2021] NSWDC 88
Case: [2021] NSWDC 88
Decision Date: 25 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Hazelwood, the respondent appealed against the severity of a sentence imposed by the County Court. Hazelwood had been found guilty of multiple offences of break, enter and steal and was already serving a sentence of imprisonment in a New South Wales prison. The County Court had delayed sentencing on the Victorian charges pending the completion of the New South Wales sentence. Hazelwood appealed on the basis that the sentencing judge had erred in imposing an aggregate sentence without sufficient regard to the delay in sentencing. The appeal was dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the County Court judge had erred in imposing an aggregate sentence for the Victorian offences without adequately considering the delay in sentencing whilst Hazelwood was serving his New South Wales sentence. The court needed to determine whether the delay in sentencing constituted a relevant mitigating factor and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate.

The court held that the County Court judge had not erred in imposing an aggregate sentence. The sentencing judge had appropriately considered the delay in sentencing as a mitigating factor and had also given appropriate weight to the seriousness of the offences committed. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate, and thus the appeal was dismissed. The court noted that the delay in sentencing was a matter of factual determination and that the County Court judge had correctly assessed the facts and circumstances of the case. The court also emphasised that an aggregate sentence was appropriate in cases where multiple offences are closely related in time and nature.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [130]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hazelwood [2021] NSWDC 88
Hearing dates:	4 March 2021
Decision date:	25 March 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [130]
Catchwords:	Multiple offences of break, enter and steal; delay in sentencing whilst serving a sentence of imprisonment interstate; aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70 RO v R [2019] NSWCCA 183 R v Blanco [1999] NSWCCA 121 R v Harris (2007) 171 A Crim R 267; [2007] NSWCCA 130 R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255 R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327; [1999] NSWCCA 435 R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517 Watts v R [2007] NSWCCA 153
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Tony Glen Hazelwood (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Solicitors: D Pace (Crown) T Spohr (Offender)
File Number(s):	18/136383
Publication restriction:	Nil