R v Hollis - [2002] NSWCCA 306

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v. HOLLIS [2002] NSWCCA 306

FILE NUMBER(S):
No. 60598 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday 30 July 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 30/07/2002

PARTIES:
REGINA v.
HOLLIS, Mark Newman

JUDGMENT OF: Sperling J Greg James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 97/21/3188; 97/21/3207

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Flannery, DCJ.

COUNSEL:
Crown: P. Ingram
App: M. Thangaraj

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: D.J. Humphreys

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - appeal - sentencing for multiple sexual offences against young children - principles in Regina v. Pearce - discount for volunteering confession - Regina v. Ellis - grounds asserting error in failing to give discount and sentence manifestly excessive - neither ground made out considering s.6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

DECISION:
Extension of time granted; application for leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60598 of 2001
SPERLING, J.
GREG JAMES, J.
TUESDAY 30 JULY 2002

REGINA v. MARK NEWMAN HOLLIS

Judgment

SPERLING, J: I ask Greg James, J. to deliver the first judgment.
GREG JAMES, J: This is an application for an extension of time to appeal and for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on the applicant in the District Court on 9 April 1999 in respect of six counts in a s.51A document, five counts on an indictment and three counts on another indictment.
The offences charged in these various documents included, on the s.51A document, one charge of indecent assault on a person under the age of 16 years, aged between 10 and 11 years, said to be committed during the year 1989, it being an offence under s.61E(1A), (3) of the Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty prescribed at the time the offence was committed was six years penal servitude; one charge of attempting to have sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years, to wit, between 10 and 11 years, said to have been committed again in 1989, an offence under the then existing provisions of the Crimes Act 1900, s.66D, and s.66C(2), punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years penal servitude; and a further count of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 10 years, to wit, aged two years, said to have been committed in 1991, an offence under s.66A of the Crimes Act 1900 punishable by a maximum penalty of 20 years custodial confinement.
The charges on the first of the two indictments presented were one charge of indecent assault of a male person between 1975 and 1980, an offence under s.81 of the Crimes Act 1900 punishable by five years penal servitude; one count of indecent assault upon a person under the age of 16 years, to wit aged six years, said to have been committed in the year 1976, to which s.76 of the Crimes Act 1900 had applied a maximum…

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 Hollis

Details

AGLC: R v Hollis [2002] NSWCCA 306
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 306
Decision Date: 30 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hollis, the defendant stood before the court to address multiple charges stemming from sexual offences committed against young children. The proceedings were heard in the appellate court where the defendant challenged the sentence imposed by the lower court. The defendant's primary contention was that the sentence was excessively severe and that the court had erred in not applying a discount for his voluntary confession.

The primary legal issues before the court involved whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the lower court had erred in failing to provide a discount for the defendant's voluntary confession. The court was required to consider the principles outlined in Regina v. Pearce, which establish guidelines for determining an appropriate sentence, as well as Regina v. Ellis, which addresses the circumstances under which a discount for a voluntary confession may be granted. Additionally, the court had to examine the application of section 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act in assessing the defendant's grounds for appeal.

In evaluating the defendant's appeal, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the sentencing process undertaken by the lower court. It considered the gravity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the necessity of deterrence and denunciation. The appellate court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the severe nature of the crimes and the need to protect the community. Furthermore, the court found no error in the lower court's decision not to apply a discount for the voluntary confession, as it deemed the sentence appropriate under the circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders