R v Hodge - [2000] NSWSC 897

CITATION: R v Hodge [2000] NSWSC 897

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70062/99

HEARING DATE(S): 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 July and 25 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 6 September 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Barrie Alan Hodge (Prisoner)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

COUNSEL : Ms MM Cunneen (Crown)
Mr MJ Ierace SC (Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Prisoner)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - stale offence - circumstances of provocation but defence not available

CASES CITED: R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
R v Blanco [1999] NSWCCA 121

DECISION: See para 31.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DUNFORD J
6 SEPTEMBER 2000
70062/99 R v Barrie Alan HODGE
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, Barrie Alan Hodge, stands for sentence today having been found guilty by the jury of the murder of Leo Leslie Press at Harbord on 13 February 1988. 2 The prisoner who was then aged 18 years, attended a party at Chatswood on the evening of Friday 12 February. Whilst there he drank some beer and inhaled one line of what he believed to be speed or amphetamines. After getting a lift with a friend to the Manly area where he dropped off his then girlfriend, Karen Rudall, at her home, he was intending to hitch a ride to where he was living at Beacon Hill. It appears that the deceased stopped in his car and offered the prisoner a lift which the latter accepted, and then invited him to go to his house at Harbord for a few more drinks. 3 The deceased was discovered in the hallway near the front door of his home at about 4 am the following morning by his brother when the latter returned home after his work at the bakery which they jointly owned. He died at about 9 o'clock that morning, as a result of multiple head injuries predominantly to the rear right hand side of the skull consistently with having been struck by a stonemason's mallet, found approximately four to five inches from where he was lying. 4 In the mean time, the prisoner returned to his girlfriend's house at Manly. He was shaking and crying, and had blood on his clothes. He told her that he thought that he had killed someone. He then got a taxi back to his home at Beacon Hill, changed his clothes and went to the home of another friend of his, Peter Somers, at whose house the party had been the previous evening. He told him that when hitchhiking home from his girlfriend's place he met a person who asked him back for a few beers, he went to sleep, and later the person came up behind him and grabbed him in a sexual sort of way, as a result of which he had hit him and he thought he had killed him. A few weeks later, at…

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 Hodge

Details

AGLC: R v Hodge [2000] NSWSC 897
Case: [2000] NSWSC 897
Decision Date: 6 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hodge, the respondent was convicted of murder and the matter came before the court for sentencing. The case centred around the circumstances surrounding the death of the victim, which occurred under conditions of provocation, but where the defence of provocation was not available. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case.

The primary legal issue for the court was the appropriate sentence for a murder conviction in circumstances where provocation was a factor but could not be used as a defence. The court needed to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in order to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence. This involved considering the severity of the crime, the circumstances of the offence, and the respondent's background and culpability.

In delivering its judgment, the court noted the gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which it occurred. While provocation was present, the court could not accept it as a defence, and therefore the full consequences of the offence needed to be considered. The court took into account the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the community, as well as the respondent's background and the potential for rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. The court acknowledged the tragic circumstances of the case but emphasised the need to uphold the rule of law and ensure that justice was served.

Orders