Legal Research
Cases
R v Hill; R v King

R v Hill; R v King

Case [2018] NSWDC 300 12 October 2018

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Remorse

Co-offenders

Form 1 offences

Objective seriousness - Parity

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hill; R v King [2018] NSWDC 300
Hearing dates: 28 September 2018
Date of orders: 12 October 2018
Decision date: 12 October 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:
1. Matthew James King is convicted.

In light of the plea of guilty the offender is sentenced to a period of 4 years and six months imprisonment to commence on the 2 April 2018 and to expire on 1 October 2022.

The offender is also sentenced to an additional term of 2 years and three months to date from 2 October 2022 and to expire on 1 January 2025.

Earliest release date shall be on 1 October 2022 subject to a decision of the State Parole Authority.
I take into account the matters on the Form 1.

2. Amie Jayne Hill is convicted.

In light of the plea the offender is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment commencing on 2 October 2017 and expiring on 1 October 2021. Thereafter the offender is to serve an additional term of 2 years commencing 2 October 2021 and expiring on 1 October 2023, during which you shall be eligible to be released to parole.

Earliest release date shall be 1 October 2021.

I take into account of the offences on the Form 1.

As the sentence for offender Hill has overall less than 6 years remaining, I refer the Offender to the Drug Court to determine if the Offender is eligible for a Compulsory Drug Treatment Order.
I take no action on the breach of the section 9 bond.
Catchwords:
SENTENCING – Aggravating factors – Causing victim to take drug, alcohol or intoxicating substance

SENTENCING – Aggravating factors – Offence committed whilst on conditional liberty

SENTENCING – Mitigating factors – Remorse

SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – Co-offenders

SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – Form 1 offences
SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – Objective seriousness - Parity
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 86(3), 192E(1); Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A(2)(c), 21A(2)(cb), 21A(2)(j), 21A(2)(n), 21A(3)(e), 21A(3)(i), 21A(3)(k), 44(2)
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (No 1) of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Georgeopoulos v R [2010] NSWCCA 246
Hein v R [2008] NSWCCA 61
Homsi v R [2011] NSWCCA 164
Jefferies v R [2008] NSWCCA 144
R v Anforth [2003] NSWCCA 222
R v Bajouri [2009] NSWCCA 125
R v Johnson, Hall and Ersman [2009] NSWDC 279
R v Khan, Rana and Mahay [2010] NSWDC 341
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
R v Thompson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
Wu; Li v R [2005] NSWCCA 442
Yousif v R [2010] NSWCCA 206
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Amie Hill (Offender)
Matthew King (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:

Ms M Fernando (Offender Hill)
Ms C Feiner (Offender King)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender Hill)
Mallinson + Rake Lawyers (Offender King)

File…

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; R v King

Details

AGLC: R v Hill; R v King [2018] NSWDC 300
Case: [2018] NSWDC 300
Decision Date: 12 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Hill and R v King, the defendants were convicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute arose from a series of criminal activities, including drug-related offences, which both defendants pleaded guilty to. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into consideration various aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the objective seriousness of the offences.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of aggravating factors such as the offences being committed while the defendants were on conditional liberty, and the defendants causing a victim to take an intoxicating substance. Mitigating factors, such as the defendants' expressions of remorse, were also considered. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the relevance of the defendants' co-offenders, the nature of the offences, and the objective seriousness of the crimes, including parity with similar cases.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully weighed all the relevant factors. The court found that the aggravating factors significantly impacted the severity of the sentence, particularly the circumstances of the offences and the defendants' actions while on conditional liberty. However, the court also acknowledged the defendants' expressions of remorse as a mitigating factor. The court ultimately determined that the objective seriousness of the offences warranted a substantial custodial sentence, with the precise terms reflecting the individual circumstances of each defendant. The sentences were designed to ensure that the defendants are held accountable for their actions while also considering the potential for rehabilitation.

The court ordered Matthew James King to serve a total of 6 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. Amie Jayne Hill was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years. Hill was also referred to the Drug Court for consideration of a Compulsory Drug Treatment Order due to the remaining term of her sentence being less than 6 years. The court took no action on the breach of the section 9 bond.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Matthew James King is convicted.

In light of the plea of guilty the offender is sentenced to a period of 4 years and six months imprisonment to commence on the 2 April 2018 and to expire on 1 October 2022.

The offender is also sentenced to an additional term of 2 years and three months to date from 2 October 2022 and to expire on 1 January 2025.

Earliest release date shall be on 1 October 2022 subject to a decision of the State Parole Authority.

I take into account the matters on the Form 1.

2. Amie Jayne Hill is convicted.

In light of the plea the offender is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment commencing on 2 October 2017 and expiring on 1 October 2021. Thereafter the offender is to serve an additional term of 2 years commencing 2 October 2021 and expiring on 1 October 2023, during which you shall be eligible to be released to parole.

Earliest release date shall be 1 October 2021.

I take into account of the offences on the Form 1.

As the sentence for offender Hill has overall less than 6 years remaining, I refer the Offender to the Drug Court to determine if the Offender is eligible for a Compulsory Drug Treatment Order.

I take no action on the breach of the section 9 bond.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Hill; R v King [2018] NSWDC 300

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 18 of 18 shown

IS v R
[2017] NSWCCA 116 Para 115

…from potential recidivism. 38. Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37, [46] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ); IS v R [2017] NSWCCA 116, [65]. 39. Exhibit 1 (King) at [38].…
Leigh Brown v The Queen
[2014] NSWCCA 335 Para 75

…oices his moral culpability is reduced. [26] 26. R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111, [200] (Spigelman CJ). See also Brown v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 335.…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 115

…to see him rehabilitated so that in the longer term the community can be protected from potential recidivism. 38. Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37, [46] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ); IS v R [2017] NSWCCA 116, [65]. 39. Exhibit 1 (King) at [38].…
Homsi v R
[2011] NSWCCA 164 Para 121

…assistance. [40] 40. R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183, [43]; Jefferies v R [2008] NSWCCA 144, [82], [85]; Hein v R [2008] NSWCCA 61, [34]; and Homsi v R [2011] NSWCCA 164, [116], [124].…
R v Michael Dean Khan
[2010] NSWDC 341 Para 122

…s also been drawn to the decisions in of this Court in R v Johnson, Hall and Ersman [41] and R v Khan, Rana and Mahay. [42] 41. [2009] NSWDC 279. 42. [2010] NSWDC 341.…
Georgopolous v R
[2010] NSWCCA 246 Para 37

…by no means does this offence fall at the bottom or towards the bottom of the range of offences contemplated by the provision. 12. Georgeopoulos v R [2010] NSWCCA 246, [32]-[32].…
Yousif v The Queen
[2010] NSWCCA 206 Para 123

…; R v Anforth , [43] Wu; Li v R , [44] R v Bajouri [45] and Yousif v R. [46] 43. [2003] NSWCCA 222. 44. [2005] NSWCCA 442. 45. [2009] NSWCCA 125. 46. [2010] NSWCCA 206.…
R v Johnson, Hall and Ersman
[2009] NSWDC 279 Para 122

…My attention has also been drawn to the decisions in of this Court in R v Johnson, Hall and Ersman [41] and R v Khan, Rana and Mahay. [42] 41. [2009] NSWDC 279. 42. [2010] NSWDC 341.…
Khaled BAJOURI v The Queen
[2009] NSWCCA 125 Para 123

…ous appellate decisions; R v Anforth , [43] Wu; Li v R , [44] R v Bajouri [45] and Yousif v R. [46] 43. [2003] NSWCCA 222. 44. [2005] NSWCCA 442. 45. [2009] NSWCCA 125. 46. [2010] NSWCCA 206.…
Jeffries v R
[2008] NSWCCA 144 Para 121

…offences under section 86 are not sufficiently homogenous to make them of much assistance. [40] 40. R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183, [43]; Jefferies v R [2008] NSWCCA 144, [82], [85]; Hein v R [2008] NSWCCA 61, [34]; and Homsi v R [2011] NSWCCA 164, [116], [124].…
Heine v R
[2008] NSWCCA 61 Para 121

…iently homogenous to make them of much assistance. [40] 40. R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183, [43]; Jefferies v R [2008] NSWCCA 144, [82], [85]; Hein v R [2008] NSWCCA 61, [34]; and Homsi v R [2011] NSWCCA 164, [116], [124].…
Shu Qiang Li v R
[2005] NSWCCA 442 Para 123

…he circumstance in various appellate decisions; R v Anforth , [43] Wu; Li v R , [44] R v Bajouri [45] and Yousif v R. [46] 43. [2003] NSWCCA 222. 44. [2005] NSWCCA 442. 45. [2009] NSWCCA 125. 46. [2010] NSWCCA 206.…
R v Newell
[2004] NSWCCA 183 Para 121

…s been drawn to sentencing statistics, offences under section 86 are not sufficiently homogenous to make them of much assistance. [40] 40. R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183, [43]; Jefferies v R [2008] NSWCCA 144, [82], [85]; Hein v R [2008] NSWCCA 61, [34]; and Homsi v R [2011] NSWCCA 164, [116], [124].…
R v Anforth
[2003] NSWCCA 222 Para 123

…I have also reviewed the circumstance in various appellate decisions; R v Anforth , [43] Wu; Li v R , [44] R v Bajouri [45] and Yousif v R. [46] 43. [2003] NSWCCA 222. 44. [2005] NSWCCA 442. 45. [2009] NSWCCA 125. 46. [2010] NSWCCA 206.…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW)
[2002] NSWCCA 518 Para 114

…n CJ in Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (No 1) of 2002. [37] 37. (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518.…
Morawski v State Rail Authority
[2000] NSWCCA 309 Para 112

…est opportunity and are entitled to a 25% discount. [35] 35. Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A(3)(k), 22; R v Thompson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309.…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCCA 111 Para 75

…very early age when he would have been less able to make rational choices his moral culpability is reduced. [26] 26. R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111, [200] (Spigelman CJ). See also Brown v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 335.…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCA 111 Para 75

…uction to drugs at a very early age when he would have been less able to make rational choices his moral culpability is reduced. [26] 26. R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111, [200] (Spigelman CJ). See also Brown v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 335.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
21A(2)(c), 21A(2)(cb), 21A(2)(d), 21A(2)... 12 mentions (from Para 31)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
192E(1), 86(3) 3 mentions (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hill; R v King [2018] NSWDC 300
Hearing dates:	28 September 2018
Date of orders:	12 October 2018
Decision date:	12 October 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:	1. Matthew James King is convicted. In light of the plea of guilty the offender is sentenced to a period of 4 years and six months imprisonment to commence on the 2 April 2018 and to expire on 1 October 2022. The offender is also sentenced to an additional term of 2 years and three months to date from 2 October 2022 and to expire on 1 January 2025. Earliest release date shall be on 1 October 2022 subject to a decision of the State Parole Authority. I take into account the matters on the Form 1. 2. Amie Jayne Hill is convicted. In light of the plea the offender is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment commencing on 2 October 2017 and expiring on 1 October 2021. Thereafter the offender is to serve an additional term of 2 years commencing 2 October 2021 and expiring on 1 October 2023, during which you shall be eligible to be released to parole. Earliest release date shall be 1 October 2021. I take into account of the offences on the Form 1. As the sentence for offender Hill has overall less than 6 years remaining, I refer the Offender to the Drug Court to determine if the Offender is eligible for a Compulsory Drug Treatment Order. I take no action on the breach of the section 9 bond.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Aggravating factors – Causing victim to take drug, alcohol or intoxicating substance SENTENCING – Aggravating factors – Offence committed whilst on conditional liberty SENTENCING – Mitigating factors – Remorse SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – Co-offenders SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – Form 1 offences SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – Objective seriousness - Parity
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 86(3), 192E(1); Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A(2)(c), 21A(2)(cb), 21A(2)(j), 21A(2)(n), 21A(3)(e), 21A(3)(i), 21A(3)(k), 44(2)
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (No 1) of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Georgeopoulos v R [2010] NSWCCA 246 Hein v R [2008] NSWCCA 61 Homsi v R [2011] NSWCCA 164 Jefferies v R [2008] NSWCCA 144 R v Anforth [2003] NSWCCA 222 R v Bajouri [2009] NSWCCA 125 R v Johnson, Hall and Ersman [2009] NSWDC 279 R v Khan, Rana and Mahay [2010] NSWDC 341 R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183 R v Thompson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 Wu; Li v R [2005] NSWCCA 442 Yousif v R [2010] NSWCCA 206
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Amie Hill (Offender) Matthew King (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms M Fernando (Offender Hill) Ms C Feiner (Offender King) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Offender Hill) Mallinson + Rake Lawyers (Offender King)
File…