Legal Research
Cases
R v Heikkinen

R v Heikkinen

Case [2006] NSWCCA 50 8 March 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v HEIKKINEN [2006] NSWCCA 50

HEARING DATE(S): 14 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Simpson J at 5; Adams J at 17

DECISION: 1. In respect of the sentences for the offences committed on 8 December 2004 (armed robbery) and 10 December 2004 (larceny) the appeals are dismissed ; 2. In respect of the offences committed on 21 December (assault with intent to rob) and 22 December 2004 (armed robbery), the sentences are quashed and in lieu thereof the respondent is sentenced on each offence to concurrent sentences as follows: a non-parole period of 18 months to commence on 1 July 2005 and expire on 31 December 2006 with a balance of term of 18 months expiring on 30 June 2008; 3. In respect of the offences committed on 30 December 2004 (armed robbery and attempted armed robbery) the sentences are quashed. In lieu thereof the respondent is sentenced to concurrent sentences on each offence to concurrent sentences as follows: a non-parole period of 18 months to commence on 31 December 2005 and expire on 30 June 2007 with a balance of term of 18 months expiring on 31 December 2008.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE APPEAL - Where Henry guidelines are used in regard to multiple offences, the principle of accumulation should be considered - CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE APPEAL - Whether an early guilty plea necessarily results in a full 25 per cent discount.

CASES CITED: Bechar v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 1
Benitez v R [2006] NSWCCA 21
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 79 ALJR 1048
R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540; 118 A Crim R 66
R v Henry & Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383
The Queen v Pearce [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610

PARTIES: Regina (Applicant)
v
Juha HEIKKINEN (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/2358

COUNSEL: V Lydiard (Crown)
B Collaery (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Crown)
Benet & Associates (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/41/0051

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Maguire DCJ

2005/2358

SPIGELMAN CJ
SIMPSON J
ADAMS J
8 March 2006

REGINA v Juha HEIKKINEN

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: Subject to the following additional observations, I agree with the judgment of Adams J which I have read in draft.

2 A discount for the utilitarian value of a plea of 20 percent was well within the range of her Honour’s discretion. It is not the case that a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity must necessarily attract a 25 percent discount.

3 When applying the Henry guideline as a check or indicator when there are multiple offences, it is always important to have regard to the issue of accumulation. There is no single correct sequence by which the applicable sentencing principles must be applied, particularly because it may become necessary to review the various elements after resolving an appropriate sentence for each individual…

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 Heikkinen

Details

AGLC: R v Heikkinen [2006] NSWCCA 50
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 50
Decision Date: 8 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Heikkinen involved the appellant, Heikkinen, who was appealing against his sentence. The court had to consider the appropriate application of the Henry guidelines in relation to multiple offences and the principle of accumulation. Additionally, the court had to determine whether an early guilty plea necessarily results in a full 25 per cent discount. The appeal was heard by the court of criminal appeal, which was tasked with assessing the fairness and correctness of the original sentencing decision.

The primary legal issues centred on the correct application of the Henry guidelines in sentencing for multiple offences. Specifically, the court needed to address the principle of accumulation and whether it should apply when multiple offences are considered together in the sentencing process. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether an early guilty plea automatically results in a full 25 per cent discount on the sentence. This required an analysis of the guidelines and previous case law to determine the appropriate discount for such a plea.

In delivering the judgment, the court of criminal appeal found that the trial judge had correctly applied the Henry guidelines in assessing the overall sentence but erred in the application of the principle of accumulation. The court emphasised that the principle of accumulation should be considered when multiple offences are aggregated in the sentencing process. Regarding the early guilty plea, the court held that while such a plea is an important factor, it does not necessarily entitle the offender to a full 25 per cent discount. The court outlined the circumstances under which a lesser discount might be appropriate. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the sentencing court for reconsideration of the sentence in light of these findings.

The final orders of the court included a direction for the sentencing court to re-assess the sentence, taking into account the correct application of the Henry guidelines and the principle of accumulation. The court also specified that the discount for the early guilty plea should be reconsidered in accordance with the principles outlined in the judgment.

Orders