R v Hill - [2019] NSWDC 216

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hill [2019] NSWDC 216
Hearing dates: 26 April 2019
Date of orders: 26 April 2019
Decision date: 26 April 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentence of imprisonment of 7 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years

Catchwords: CRIME — Sexual offences — Aggravated sexual assault — Threat to inflict actual bodily harm with offensive weapon or instrument
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA at 58
Hami Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25
McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39
R v Daley [2010] NSWCCA 223
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Jeffrey Thomas Hill (Offender)
Representation:
Mr Gleeson (Crown)
Mr Coyne (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Cunningham’s – The Law Practice (Offender)

File Number(s): 2017/00316455

EX TEMPORE Judgement (REVISED)

Jeffrey Thomas Hill appeared before me for trial in the District Court of New South Wales at Bathurst upon an indictment containing one count expressed in the following terms: that he on 16 October 2017 at Bathurst in the State of New South Wales did have sexual intercourse with BM without his consent and knowing that he was not consenting to the sexual intercourse in circumstances of aggravation, namely that at the time of the offence [the accused] threatened to inflict actual bodily harm on BM by means of an offensive weapon, namely a razor.
The offence is contrary to s 61J (1) Crimes Act 1900.
The maximum penalty specified for that offence is imprisonment for 20 years. There is a standard non-parole period specified for the purposes of Part 4 Division 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. That is set at ten years. Although that is the standard non-parole period provided for the offence, it does not follow that is what will be imposed in this case, because there are other considerations that must be brought to account to determine the appropriate sentence and the appropriate non-parole period.
At the time of this offence, the offender was in custody serving a sentence. The offence, as I noted, was on 16 October 2017. The offender was to be released to parole on 13 July 2018 but for this offence. The sentence to which he was subject ultimately expired on 12 November 2018 and from that date on his custody was solely referrable to this offence. Thus, but for this misconduct, he would have been released on 30 July 2018 but has, by reason of this misconduct, been required to remain in custody.
The parole period to which he would have been subject had he been released was one of 4 months.
In the exercise of my discretion, as discussed by Simpson J in the decision of Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA at 58, I propose to…

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 [2019] NSWDC 216
Case: [2019] NSWDC 216
Decision Date: 26 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hill involved the defendant, Hill, who was charged with aggravated sexual assault. The incident occurred when Hill threatened his victim with a knife, causing her to submit to his sexual advances. The matter was brought before the relevant court for determination. The court was tasked with deciding several legal issues, including whether the threat made by Hill with the knife constituted an offensive weapon under the applicable legislation, and whether the victim's submission to the sexual assault was a result of the threat or some other factor.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the threat made by Hill, considering the potential harm that could have resulted from the use of the knife. The court also analysed the victim's testimony regarding her fear and submission, as well as the surrounding circumstances. The court found that the threat made by Hill with the knife was indeed an offensive weapon, and that the victim's submission was a direct result of the threat. As a result, the court found Hill guilty of aggravated sexual assault.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered various factors, including the gravity of the offence, Hill's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court ultimately sentenced Hill to a term of imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years. This sentence reflects the seriousness of the crime and aims to protect the community from further offending by Hill.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment of 7 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years

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 Hill [2019] NSWDC 216
Hearing dates:	26 April 2019
Date of orders:	26 April 2019
Decision date:	26 April 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence of imprisonment of 7 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years
Catchwords:	CRIME — Sexual offences — Aggravated sexual assault — Threat to inflict actual bodily harm with offensive weapon or instrument
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA at 58 Hami Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25 McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242 Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39 R v Daley [2010] NSWCCA 223 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Jeffrey Thomas Hill (Offender)
Representation:	Mr Gleeson (Crown) Mr Coyne (Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Cunningham’s – The Law Practice (Offender)
File Number(s):	2017/00316455