R v Hinton - [2019] NSWDC 380

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hinton [2019] NSWDC 380
Hearing dates: 17 April 2019
Date of orders: 02 May 2019
Decision date: 02 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven and a half years’ imprisonment commencing on 26 May 2018 and expiring on 25 November 2025, with a non-parole period of five years expiring on 25 May 2023

Catchwords: SENTENCING — cause grievous bodily harm with intent — sentence of full-time imprisonment
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Hayek v R [2016] NSWCCA 126
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
Veen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Earnie Hinton (Offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
Abdi (Offender)
Constantino (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/357304

SENTENCE

The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court and adhered to that plea before me to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm to Nicolas Davis with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, on 17 November 2017. That is an offence under s 33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. It has a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment, and there is an applicable standard non‑parole period of seven years.

Facts

The facts are agreed, and the following is taken from the agreed facts. The facts indicate that the offender is known to the complainant and a witness to the incident through mutual acquaintances.
At about 4.55am on Friday 17 November 2017, the victim and the witness referred to in the facts, walked across the concourse at Kingswood Train Station to cross to the southern side of the rail corridor in the direction of the hospital. As the victim and the witness walked down the stairwell on the southern side of the station, they noticed the offender standing at the bottom of the stairs. The victim and the witness continued walking down the stairs.
As the two reached the bottom of the stairs, the offender walked over to the victim and starting yelling at him whilst brandishing a piece of wood approximately 10 centimetres wide and 120 centimetres long. The offender struck the victim to the left side of his head, at the base of his neck and skull with the plank of wood. This caused the victim to fall on the ground. Whilst on the ground, the offender kicked the victim. The victim suffered a brief moment of unconsciousness before the witness helped him up from the ground and assisted him to walk away as he was unsteady on his feet and unable to balance.
The offender remained at the train station, and a number of commuters contacted police. Police attended the train station and spoke to the offender. He provided his full name. Police observed a piece of wood hidden behind a…

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 Hinton

Details

AGLC: R v Hinton [2019] NSWDC 380
Case: [2019] NSWDC 380
Decision Date: 02 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the defendant, Hinton, was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The case involved a serious assault that left the victim with significant injuries. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account the severity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The court had to consider both the objective and subjective circumstances of the case. The objective circumstances included the severity of the harm inflicted, while the subjective circumstances involved factors such as the defendant's background, the presence of any mitigating factors, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court also had to balance the need for punishment with the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the gravity of the offence and the significant harm caused to the victim. The court noted that the assault was premeditated and involved a degree of violence that warranted a substantial penalty. The defendant had a prior criminal history, which was considered in the sentencing process. However, the court also acknowledged the defendant's expressions of remorse and the potential for rehabilitation. After weighing all the factors, the court determined that a sentence of full-time imprisonment was appropriate. The court sentenced the defendant to a term of seven and a half years, with a non-parole period of five years. The sentence was to commence on 26 May 2018 and expire on 25 November 2025.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven and a half years’ imprisonment commencing on 26 May 2018 and expiring on 25 November 2025, with a non-parole period of five years expiring on 25 May 2023

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 Hinton [2019] NSWDC 380
Hearing dates:	17 April 2019
Date of orders:	02 May 2019
Decision date:	02 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Buscombe DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven and a half years’ imprisonment commencing on 26 May 2018 and expiring on 25 November 2025, with a non-parole period of five years expiring on 25 May 2023
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — cause grievous bodily harm with intent — sentence of full-time imprisonment SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Hayek v R [2016] NSWCCA 126 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 Veen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Earnie Hinton (Offender)
Representation:	Solicitors: Abdi (Offender) Constantino (Crown)
File Number(s):	2017/357304