R v Hickman - [2013] NSWDC 143

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hickman [2013] NSWDC 143
Hearing dates: 17 May 2013
Decision date: 17 May 2013
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a total of 5 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Siege - Police negotiating with offender - Offender aimed firearm at police - Offender fired shot into the air - Offender fired second shot over top of police armed vehicle - Muffled gunshot heard from inside offender's house - Offender again aimed firearm at police - Police discharged two rounds at offender - Offender received injuries to hands - Offender arrested and conveyed to hospital - Little and ring fingers of each hand amputated - Use offensive weapon with intent to intimidate - Multiple firearms offences - Breach of four s 9 bonds - Offender had long history of drug and alcohol abuse - Mentally handicapped - Diagnosis of psychotic disorder - Commission of offences the result of substance induced psychosis
Legislation Cited: Firearms Act 1996 s 7A(1)
Crimes Act 1900 s 33B(1)(a)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (201) 79 NSWLR 1
R v Cicekdag (2004) 150 A Crim R 299
R v Mostyn (2004) 145 A Crim R 304
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Kelvin John Hickman (Offender)
Representation: Ms L Burgoyne (Crown)
Ms M Chu (Offender)

File Number(s): 2012/257141

Judgment

Kelvin John Hickman stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to four very serious offences which he committed on 16 August 2012. He asks me to take into account, in passing sentence, two matters on a Form 1 in respect of one of the four serious offences, what I will refer to shortly as the sequence 2 offence, using an offensive weapon with intent to intimidate. In addition, the offender asks me to deal with him for a breach of four s 9 bonds imposed upon him by the Local Court at Sutherland on 20 October 2011. I shall do so. Although the offences of 16 August 2012 are very serious, it is also important to bear in mind the circumstances of the earlier offences because they shed some light on the offender's conduct on 16 August 2012.

The first of the four earlier offences occurred on 20 October 2010 in Torres Street, Kurnell. The offender was then living, and lived at all material times, at 128 Torres Street, Kurnell. The offence in question was common assault upon Mr John Eastern. Mr Eastern was a builder who was doing work at the house of a neighbour of the offender, Ms Lisa Mansfield. At about 9.10am on 20 October 2010, the offender was out the front of his house but was very upset. He was shouting out loudly about one of his neighbours, who had parked his vehicle in front of the offender's residence making it difficult for the Sutherland…

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 Hickman

Details

AGLC: R v Hickman [2013] NSWDC 143
Case: [2013] NSWDC 143
Decision Date: 17 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hickman involved an offender who engaged in a siege with police, during which he aimed and fired firearms, resulting in injuries to his hands and his eventual arrest. The offender had a history of drug and alcohol abuse and was mentally handicapped, with a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder. He was charged with multiple firearms offences and breaching four s 9 bonds. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that considered the offender's mental health, history of substance abuse, and the circumstances of the offence.

The primary legal issue was to assess the appropriate penalty for the offender's actions, taking into account his mental health status and the factors contributing to his behaviour. The court had to balance the seriousness of the offences with the need for rehabilitation, particularly given the offender's diagnosed mental health conditions and history of substance abuse. The court also had to consider the impact of the offender's actions on the police officers involved.

The court found that the offender's actions during the siege were extremely dangerous and warranted a substantial sentence. However, it also recognised the significant mitigating factors, including the offender's mental health issues and history of substance abuse. The court ultimately decided on a sentence of 5 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months, to provide both punishment and an opportunity for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the offender be sentenced to a total of 5 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months. This sentence aimed to address the seriousness of the offences while considering the offender's mental health and substance abuse issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a total of 5 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months

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 Hickman [2013] NSWDC 143
Hearing dates:	17 May 2013
Decision date:	17 May 2013
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a total of 5 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Siege - Police negotiating with offender - Offender aimed firearm at police - Offender fired shot into the air - Offender fired second shot over top of police armed vehicle - Muffled gunshot heard from inside offender's house - Offender again aimed firearm at police - Police discharged two rounds at offender - Offender received injuries to hands - Offender arrested and conveyed to hospital - Little and ring fingers of each hand amputated - Use offensive weapon with intent to intimidate - Multiple firearms offences - Breach of four s 9 bonds - Offender had long history of drug and alcohol abuse - Mentally handicapped - Diagnosis of psychotic disorder - Commission of offences the result of substance induced psychosis
Legislation Cited:	Firearms Act 1996 s 7A(1) Crimes Act 1900 s 33B(1)(a)
Cases Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (201) 79 NSWLR 1 R v Cicekdag (2004) 150 A Crim R 299 R v Mostyn (2004) 145 A Crim R 304
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Kelvin John Hickman (Offender)
Representation:	Ms L Burgoyne (Crown) Ms M Chu (Offender)
File Number(s):	2012/257141