R v Hill

Case [2020] NSWCCA 197 10 August 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hill [2020] NSWCCA 197
Hearing dates: 13 July 2020
Date of orders: 10 August 2020
Decision date: 10 August 2020
Before: Price J at [1];
Garling J at [124];
Wright J at [125]
Decision:
Crown appeal dismissed

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal – whether aggregate sentence manifestly inadequate – pleas of guilty to aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault and possession of child abuse material – whether undiscounted starting points of indicative sentences failed to reflect findings of objective seriousness – whether reference by judge as to offending being in worst case category was inconsistent with individual assessments of objective seriousness – consideration of respondent’s subjective case – consideration of respondent’s offences – whether failure to adequately accumulate sentences – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 53A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61J(2)(b), 86(2), 91H, 578A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37; 87 ALJR 1022; 302 ALR 192; 229 A Crim R 337
Director of Public Prosecutions(Cth) v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301; 270 A Crim R 556; 327 FLR 71
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194; 273 ALR 324; 205 A Crim R 1; 243 FLR 28
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45; 85 ALJR 195; 272 ALR 465; 204 A Crim R 434; 78 ATR 11
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; 246 A Crim R 528
Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218; 78 MVR 191
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25; 79 ALJR 1048; 215 ALR 213
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39; 85 ALJR 1154; 281 ALR 652; 212 A Crim R 254
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221; 350 ALR 103
Pearce v the Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57; 72 ALJR 1416; 156 ALR 684; 103 A Crim R 372
R v AJP [2004] NSWCCA 434; 150 A Crim R 575
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48; 91 ALJR 131; 339 ALR 30; 264 A Crim R 315
R v King [2009] NSWCCA 117
R v Nakash [2017] NSWCCA 196
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39; 90 ALJR 13; 325 ALR 400; 244 A Crim R 280
TB v R [2020] NSWCCA 108
The Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428; [2017] HCA 41; 91 ALJR 1063; 349 ALR 37

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 Hill

Details

AGLC: R v Hill [2020] NSWCCA 197
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 197
Decision Date: 10 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hill, the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and possession of child abuse material, faced an appeal by the Crown concerning the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The trial judge had sentenced the respondent to an aggregate term of imprisonment, which the Crown argued was manifestly inadequate. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the undiscounted starting points of the indicative sentences for each offence appropriately reflected the objective seriousness of the respondent's crimes. Additionally, the court had to determine if the trial judge's reference to the offending being in the worst case category was inconsistent with the individual assessments of objective seriousness.

The court reviewed the sentencing principles and the objective seriousness of the respondent's offences, taking into account the severity and nature of the crimes. It found that the trial judge's assessment of the objective seriousness of each offence was appropriate, and the undiscounted starting points accurately reflected these assessments. The court further examined whether the failure to adequately accumulate the sentences constituted a significant error, but ultimately concluded that the aggregate sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial judge's sentencing decision.

Orders