R v Hintz - [2022] NSWDC 750

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hintz [2022] NSWDC 750
Hearing dates: 18 August 2022
Date of orders: 18 August 2022
Decision date: 18 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Imprisonment for 3 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months

Catchwords:
CRIME – armed robbery
SENTENCE – relevant factors on sentence – unrepresented offender – young first offender – application of Henry guideline –childhood trauma – drug use need for rehabilitation programmes – impact of COVID – special circumstances – role of State Parole Authority

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) (1999) (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Legge [2007] NSWCCA 244

Category: Sentence
Parties: Wade Hintz (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Representation: Solicitors:
K McCrossin (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
W Hintz (self-represented)

File Number(s): 2021/225089

JUDGMENT – EX TEMPORE REVISED

Introduction

This morning Wade Hintz adhered to a plea of guilty that he had entered in the Local Court to an offence or Robbery Armed with an offensive weapon. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment: s 97(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). That maximum penalty is one important guide to the exercise of my sentencing discretion.
Hintz pleaded guilty in the Local Court, he co‑operated with the authorities. The utilitarian value of his plea must be recognised by a reduction in 25% in the otherwise appropriate sentence.
The facts of the matter, to which I will refer shortly, require consideration of the Court of Criminal Appeal’s guideline judgment of R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111. I am required to take that guideline into account: s 43A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW); Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160. It is a guideline not a tramline:”’ R v Legge [2007] NSWCCA 244. It is not a fetter on the discretion of the Court, but it must be taken into account. It is important to note that one rationale for the guideline in Henry was the purported undue leniency shown by judges of this Court to young offenders who commit armed robberies.

The Form 1

Hintz admitted his guilt and asked that I take into account a number of other matters on a Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) Form 1. I will do so. I do not sentence for those matters, but they do increase the need to take into account the need for personal deterrence and retribution in the matters for sentence: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 at [39]-[42]
The Form 1…

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 Hintz

Details

AGLC: R v Hintz [2022] NSWDC 750
Case: [2022] NSWDC 750
Decision Date: 18 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hintz, was convicted for his involvement in an armed robbery. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the offence. The central legal issues the court needed to address were the appropriate factors to consider when sentencing an unrepresented offender who was a young first offender with a history of childhood trauma and drug use, and how these factors should be balanced against the need for community protection and the potential benefits of rehabilitation programmes. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of COVID-19 on the availability of such programmes and any other special circumstances that might affect the sentencing decision.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal considered the guidelines established in R v Henry, which provide a framework for determining sentences in cases involving armed robbery. The court acknowledged the appellant's young age, first-time offending, and the significant adverse childhood experiences he had endured. These factors were weighed against the severity of the offence and the need for public protection. The court also considered the appellant's need for rehabilitation programmes, which could potentially mitigate his risk of reoffending, and the impact of COVID-19 on the availability of such programmes. Ultimately, the court determined that the appellant's sentence should reflect both the need for punishment and deterrence, and the opportunity for rehabilitation, taking into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the appropriate sentence was imprisonment for a total of 3 years and 4 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months. This sentence balanced the need to protect the community with the opportunity to rehabilitate the appellant, taking into account his personal circumstances and the impact of COVID-19. The court recognised the role of the State Parole Authority in monitoring the appellant's progress and determining his release. This decision underscores the importance of a nuanced approach to sentencing that considers both the individual circumstances of the offender and the broader societal implications of the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Imprisonment for 3 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months

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 Hintz [2022] NSWDC 750
Hearing dates:	18 August 2022
Date of orders:	18 August 2022
Decision date:	18 August 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Imprisonment for 3 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months
Catchwords:	CRIME – armed robbery SENTENCE – relevant factors on sentence – unrepresented offender – young first offender – application of Henry guideline –childhood trauma – drug use need for rehabilitation programmes – impact of COVID – special circumstances – role of State Parole Authority
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) (1999) (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v Legge [2007] NSWCCA 244
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Wade Hintz (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Representation:	Solicitors: K McCrossin (for Director of Public Prosecutions) W Hintz (self-represented)
File Number(s):	2021/225089