Legal Research
Cases
R v Hines (No 3)

R v Hines (No 3)

Case [2014] NSWSC 1273 17 September 2014

Protection of the Community

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
Hearing dates: 3 July, 16 September 2014
Decision date: 17 September 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Sentenced to a non-parole period of 16½ years commencing on 19 February 2013 and expiring on 18 August 2029 with a balance of term of 7½ years commencing on 19 August 2029 and expiring on 18 February 2037.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - murder - single stab wound to the chest - no premeditation - intention to inflict grievous bodily harm - provocation as a mitigating feature - previous offence of murder - future dangerousness - standard of proof - protection of the community - circumstances of deprivation - relevance of intoxication - victim's impact statement in cases of homicide - all human life precious - whether appropriate to take family victims' impact statements into account in determining sentence - recent amendments - "aspect of harm done to the community" - particular circumstances - special circumstances - aggravating features
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Aslett v R [2006] NSWCCA 360
Attorney General's Reference No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 205 A Crim R 1
Fardon v Attorney General (Qld) [2004] HCA 46; (2004) 223 CLR 575
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270; (1999) 108 A Crim R 464
Potts v R [2012] NSWCCA 229; (2012) 227 A Crim R 217
R v Aytugrul [2009] NSWSC 275
R v Barlow [2013] NSWSC 217
R v Beldon [2012] NSWCCA 194
R v Bell (1985) 2 NSWLR 466; (1985) 18 A Crim R 19
R v Booth [2014] NSWCCA 156
R v Borg [2010] NSWSC 951
R v Dang [1999] NSWCCA 42
R v Gittany (No. 5) [2014] NSWSC 49
R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451; [2001] NSWCCA 37
R v Heffernan [2005] NSWSC 739
R v Hines [2014] NSWSC 701
R v Anthony Jones [2012] NSWSC 1433
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120
R v McNamara [2004] NSWCCA 42
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76.
R v SLD [2003] NSWCCA 310; (2003) 58 NSWLR 589; (2003) 142 A Crim R 503.
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; (1988) 33 A Crim R 230
Versluys v R [2014] NSWCCA 98
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Accused: Alan John Hines
Representation: Counsel:
P McGrath (Crown)
E Wilson SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of…

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 Hines (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1273
Decision Date: 17 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hines (No 3) involved the appellant, Hines, who was convicted of murder. The nature of the dispute was centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Hines for the offence of murder, given specific mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The High Court of Australia was the judicial body that heard and decided the appeal.

The court was required to decide several legal issues, including the relevance of intoxication and provocation as mitigating factors, the significance of a previous murder conviction, and the weight to be given to the victim's impact statement. Additionally, the court needed to consider the standard of proof required for imposing a sentence that protected the community and the relevance of the "aspect of harm done to the community." The court also examined the circumstances of the offence and whether they constituted special circumstances warranting a specific sentence.

The court found that while provocation and intoxication could be mitigating factors, they were not sufficient to reduce the sentence in this case. The court held that the appellant's previous conviction for murder was an aggravating factor, and the community's protection was paramount. The court also found that the victim's impact statement was relevant in understanding the harm done to the community. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence should reflect the particular circumstances of the offence and the appellant's future dangerousness. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

In summary, the High Court of Australia found that the sentence imposed on Hines was appropriate and reflected the particular circumstances of the offence, including the appellant's future dangerousness. The court held that the mitigating factors of provocation and intoxication were not sufficient to warrant a reduced sentence. Additionally, the court found that the victim's impact statement was relevant in understanding the harm done to the community and that the appellant's previous conviction for murder was an aggravating factor. The court also held that the standard of proof required for imposing a sentence that protected the community was met in this case.

Orders