Legal Research
Cases
R v Hickson (No 4)

R v Hickson (No 4)

Case [2020] NSWSC 340 3 April 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hickson (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 340
Hearing dates: 28 February 2020
Date of orders: 03 April 2020
Decision date: 03 April 2020
Before: Davies J
Decision:
For the offence of murder the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 22 years commencing 2 November 2017 and expiring 1 November 2039, with a non-parole period of 15 years expiring 1 November, 2032. The offender will be first eligible for parole on 1 November 2032.

Catchwords: CRIME - sentence - murder - where offender intended to rob victim at his own home – where victim stabbed to death in the course of the robbery - where offence committed over thirty years ago - where offender discovered following findings from a recent review of DNA evidence retained from crime scene - issue of delay – need to sentence according to prevailing sentence practices at the time of the offence – aggravating factors of planning, use of a weapon, committed in home of victim, committed for financial gain - offender with a lengthy criminal record - no remorse shown - poor prospects of rehabilitation – concerns for reoffending – older offender - offender in poor health – special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A, 44
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002 No 90
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown
Terry John Hickson (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Everson (Crown)
P D Young SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2017/331768
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On the night of 21/22 December 1989 Charles Skarratt was murdered in the garage of his home in The Point Road, Woolwich. Mr Skarratt was a 72 year old bookmaker who on that evening had returned from operating his bookmaker’s stand at the Dapto Greyhound Track. In the ordinary course on days when Mr Skarratt operated his stand, he would have on his person or with him a large amount of money from his bookmaking business.
Mr Skarratt was stabbed a number of times with a knife as well as receiving a number of blunt force injuries. He died from a combination of those assaults. He was found the following morning in the garage of their house by his wife who immediately sought the assistance of a neighbour who was a doctor.
Forensic analysis of the evidence was conducted but it did not yield any significant results. The police investigation in the period immediately following Mr Skarratt’s death focused on his business associates and close family. Several leads were pursued involving fellow bookmakers and other figures in the greyhound racing industry, but all to no avail.
In 2016, police conducted a review of the matter and a number of exhibits were taken to the NSW Forensic and Analytical Science Service. In October 2016 one full DNA and two…

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 Hickson (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Hickson (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 340
Case: [2020] NSWSC 340
Decision Date: 03 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hickson (No 4) involved the defendant who was convicted of murder after committing the offence over thirty years ago. The offender intended to rob the victim at their home, resulting in the victim being stabbed to death during the course of the robbery. The offender was identified and convicted following a recent review of DNA evidence retained from the crime scene. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed, taking into account the delay in bringing the offender to justice, and the need to sentence according to the prevailing sentence practices at the time the offence was committed.

The court considered various legal principles in determining the sentence, including the need to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's criminal history, and the risk of reoffending. The court found that the offence was premeditated, involved the use of a weapon, was committed in the home of the victim, and was committed for financial gain. The offender had a lengthy criminal record, showed no remorse, and had poor prospects of rehabilitation. Additionally, the offender was an older person in poor health, which was considered a special circumstance.

The court determined that the appropriate sentence was one that reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community from further offending. The court also took into account the delay in bringing the offender to justice and the offender's age and health. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period of twenty years, reflecting the seriousness of the offence, the offender's criminal history, and the need to protect the community. The court also ordered that the offender be subject to a number of special conditions during his period of imprisonment, including restrictions on contact with the victim's family and participation in rehabilitation programs.

Orders