R v Hood

Case [2007] NSWDC 157


CITATION: R v Hood [2007] NSWDC 157
HEARING DATE(S): 15-19 & 22 January 2007
10 & 31 May 2007
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

12 July 2007
JURISDICTION: Criminal
JUDGMENT OF: Nield DCJ
DECISION: See paragraph 43
CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentence after trial - Offence of giving false evidence to an examiner of the Australian Crime Commission
LEGISLATION CITED: Australian Crime Commission Act (2002 ) s.33(1)
Financial Transactions Report Act (1988)
Crimes Act 1914 (Clth) s.16A, s.17A, s.19, s.19AC, s.16F
CASES CITED: See paragraph 35
PARTIES: Regina (Clth)
Michael Joseph Hood
FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0521
COUNSEL:

Mr M. Bracks of Counsel (Commonwealth DPP)

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP
Galloways Solicitors & Attorneys

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: As to the sentencing of Michael Joseph Hood.

1. The offender is Michael Joseph Hood. He was born on 22 April 1958. Accordingly, he was aged forty-seven years one month when, on 26 May 2005, he committed the offences, for which I am to impose sentences upon him, and he is aged forty-nine years two months now.

2. The offender is the eldest of his parents’ five children. His parents and three of his four brothers are alive. He has limited contact with his parents and siblings other than his youngest brother. I see nothing in his background relevant to his commission of the subject offences.

3. The offender was raised, so far as I am aware, by loving parents in a happy and supportive environment. I see nothing in his upbringing relevant to his commission of the subject offences.

4. The offender attended primary and secondary schools in the inner western suburbs of Sydney. He completed Year 10 and obtained the School Certificate. I see nothing in his education relevant to his commission of the subject offences.

5. After leaving school, the offender trained under his father’s tutelage as a jockey. He achieved considerable success as a jockey. At the age of about thirty years he ceased his career as a jockey and commenced a career as a horse trainer.

6. During March 1997 the offender suffered injuries to his neck and back when one of two horses that he was leading across a road in Rosehill was struck by a car and killed. He was treated for his physical injuries and for his psychological reaction to the incident and his injuries for some time before being able to resume his career as a horse trainer.

7. The offender was declared bankrupt at the end of 2005. I do not know whether he was declared bankrupt on the petition of a creditor or on his own petition and I do not know the reason, other than, obviously, that he could not meet his liabilities, for his being declared bankrupt. He was in receipt of the New Start allowance from the Department of Social Security from early 2006 until 31 May 2007 when I refused bail to him and committed him to prison pending sentencing.

8. The offender has been married twice and he has had two long term relationships.…

Continue reading R v Hood

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hood [2007] NSWDC 157
Case
[2007] NSWDC 157
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hood, was convicted of giving false evidence to an examiner of the Australian Crime Commission. The conviction arose from a hearing where Hood was questioned under oath about his involvement in drug trafficking. Hood appealed against the severity of his sentence, arguing that it was excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Hood was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, the nature of the offence, and the principles of proportionality in sentencing.

The court noted that Hood's crime involved serious dishonesty and deception under oath, which undermined the integrity of the legal process. The court acknowledged the need for deterrence in cases involving false testimony, especially in criminal proceedings involving organised crime. However, the court also considered the totality of the circumstances, including Hood's background and personal circumstances, and the need for individualised sentencing. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and served the purposes of denunciation and deterrence.

The court upheld the sentence, confirming that it was within the range of reasonable penalties for the offence. The court emphasised that while sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion, it must be exercised in accordance with the principles of proportionality and individualisation. The court held that the sentence was not so severe as to shock the conscience of the community or to be regarded as manifestly excessive.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court confirmed that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and proportionate to the offence committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 43

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.