R v Hewett and Lacey - [2016] VSC 749

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0047
S CR 2016 0048

THE QUEEN

EDWARD CHARLES HEWETT

ANDREW DAVID LACEY

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 November 2016 & 8 December 2016
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 December 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hewett & Lacey
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 749

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Aggravated burglary – Intentionally causing injury – Home invasion by 3 offenders (H, L & P) – Victim assaulted in his bed with a baseball bat by P – H and L played supporting roles – No antecedents for H and limited antecedents for L – Pleas of guilty entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Youthful offenders, aged 21 and 22, at time of offending – Combined sentence of imprisonment and Community Correction Order imposed on both H and L – R v Parry [2016] VSC 685.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S Coombes	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Hewett	Mr D Hallowes QC	Vale Criminal Law
For the Accused Lacey	Mr T Marsh	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Edward Charles Hewett[1] and Andrew David Lacey,[2] you have both pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary (Charge 1) and intentionally causing injury (Charge 2).
[1]You, Hewett, pleaded guilty before me on 12 September 2016.
[2]You, Lacey, pleaded guilty before Lasry J on 19 August 2016.

I propose to pass a combined sentence on each of you – that is, a sentence that combines a sentence of imprisonment with a Community Correction Order (CCO), assuming that you both consent to being placed on CCOs.

If you do consent to the CCOs, the effect of my orders today will be that you both become eligible for parole immediately.

It will then be for the parole board to determine if and when you get parole.

I will go into more detail regarding my sentences at the conclusion of these sentencing remarks.

The facts

Charge 1 states that:

At Werribee in Victoria on the 5th day of July 2015 [you] entered as a trespasser a building at 19 Myrtle Street with intent to commit an offence involving an assault to a person therein and at the time knew that the co-offender Daniel Nathan Parry had with him an offensive weapon namely a baseball bat.

Charge 2 states that:

At Werribee in Victoria on the 5^th day of July 2015 without lawful excuse, [you] intentionally caused injury to Garry Phillip Coulson.

I dealt with your co-offender Daniel Nathan Parry recently. He pleaded guilty to murdering Gary Phillip Coulson on 5 July 2015 in the course of the home invasion to which the two of you, regrettably, were a party. I sentenced Parry to 19 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years.

The two of you are not criminally responsible for that murder. You fall to be sentenced…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Hewett and Lacey and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] VSC 749
Decision Date: 8 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hewett and Lacey involved two defendants, Hewett and Lacey, who were convicted of aggravated burglary with the additional charge of intentionally causing injury. The incident involved a home invasion by three offenders, one of whom, P, assaulted the victim in his bed with a baseball bat. Hewett and Lacey played supporting roles in the offence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were the appropriate sentences for Hewett and Lacey, considering their roles in the aggravated burglary and the assault. The court needed to weigh their involvement against their lack of antecedents (Hewett) and limited antecedents (Lacey), their guilty pleas entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity, their good prospects of rehabilitation, and the fact that they were youthful offenders at the time of the offence, aged 21 and 22 respectively.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the principles set out in R v Parry, which emphasised the importance of proportionality and rehabilitation in sentencing young offenders. The court found that while the crime was serious, the defendants’ roles were less central compared to the primary offender, P. Additionally, their early guilty pleas and potential for rehabilitation were significant mitigating factors. The court imposed a combined sentence of imprisonment and a Community Correction Order on both Hewett and Lacey, reflecting a balanced approach between punishment and rehabilitation.

The final orders included a period of imprisonment followed by a Community Correction Order for both Hewett and Lacey, reflecting the court's consideration of their roles, the circumstances of the offence, and their prospects for rehabilitation.

Orders