R v Hitch

Case [2020] NSWDC 838


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hitch [2020] NSWDC 838
Hearing dates: 1/9/20, 2/9/20, 3/9/20, 30/10/20 3/11/20
Date of orders: 3/11/20
Decision date: 03 November 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:

Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years 4 months with a NPP of 2 years (20/10/19-19/10/21).

I find special circumstances.

Seq 1 and 2 on the s166 certificate are withdrawn and dismissed.

Catchwords:

Crime – Sentence – Aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37

Mapp v R (2010) 206 A Crim R 497

Marshall v R [2007] NSWCCA 24

Palijan v R [2010] NSWCCA 142

R v Bennett [2014] NSWCCA 197

R v Li (unreported, NSWCCA 9 July 1997)

R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327

Category:Sentence
Parties: NSW DPP – Crown
Jamie Hitch - Offender
Representation: Ms C Hurford for Crown
Mr T Healey for Offender
File Number(s): 2019/2887

sentence

THE OFFENCES

  1. Mr Jamie Hitch is for sentence in relation to an offence of breaking and entering the house of Marie Mott and committing in that house a serious indictable offence, namely, intentionally damaging property in circumstances of aggravation in that he knew that there was a person or persons present inside the premises. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years' imprisonment and a standard non parole period of five years is prescribed. That maximum and the standard non parole period are, of course, important legislative guideposts to which I must have regard when determining the sentence.

  2. The offender pleaded guilty to the charge in circumstances where his trial was listed to commence on 1 September 2020 and, at that stage, involving two charges. However, on that day it was indicated that a plea of guilty would be entered to an amended indictment the next day, and on that next day, 2 September 2020, the offender pleaded guilty to the current indictment containing one count. It is agreed that in those circumstances he is entitled to a discount of 5% by reason of the utilitarian value of his plea of guilty.

FACTS

  1. The offence occurred at a house in Erina Place, South Windsor, on 2 January 2019. The residents of that house were Ms Marie Mott and her two sons, Kevin Mitchell and Paul Mitchell. Paul Mitchell was also known as PJ.

  2. At about 11.30am that day Kevin Mitchell was in the house when he heard a knock at the door. When he answered the door he saw a woman named Emily Heffernan who was a friend of Kevin's brother, PJ. At that time Emily was in a domestic relationship with the offender, Mr Hitch, and they had been living together in a converted garage on a property in Jamieson Road, Penrith.

  3. On that morning of 2 January 2019 Ms Heffernan had been dropped at the house in Erina Place, South Windsor, by her mother after her mother picked her up…

Continue reading R v Hitch

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hitch [2020] NSWDC 838
Case
[2020] NSWDC 838
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Hitch, faced the court in relation to a charge of aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction. The defendant was alleged to have broken into a property with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, which involved a degree of premeditation and violence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant, considering the nature of the offence and the aggravating factors. The court also had to determine whether special circumstances existed to warrant a harsher sentence. Additionally, the court considered the application of the statutory provisions concerning the imposition of a non-parole period and the withdrawal and dismissal of certain items on the s166 certificate.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the offence was indeed aggravated due to the premeditated nature and the violence involved. The court identified special circumstances which justified a more severe sentence. Consequently, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and four months, with a non-parole period of two years. The court also determined that the special circumstances warranted the withdrawal and dismissal of the items on the s166 certificate. The sentence was backdated to the date of the defendant’s initial detention, and the non-parole period was set to expire on 19 October 2021.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years 4 months with a NPP of 2 years (20/10/19-19/10/21).

I find special circumstances.

Seq 1 and 2 on the s166 certificate are withdrawn and dismissed.

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.