R v Hooker - [1999] NSWSC 896

CITATION: R v HOOKER [1999] NSWSC 896

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70089/98

HEARING DATE(S): 23/06/99, 27/08/99, 02/09/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 September 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v David Jason HOOKER

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: T R Hoyle SC
Prisoner: M Ierace

SOLICITORS: Crown: S N Rodwell
Prisoner: A Nasti

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentencing - young offender; Criminal Law - sentencing - murder; Criminal Law - sentencing - robbery

DECISION: See paragraphs 32 to 36 inclusive

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
GRAHAM BARR J
Thursday, 2 September 1999
70089/98 - REGINA v David Jason HOOKER
JUDGMENT
1   HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, David Jason Hooker, was committed to this Court for trial on a large number of counts. The Crown first presented an indictment on 23 June 1999, the prisoner pleaded guilty to certain of the counts and the Crown accepted his pleas in discharge of the indictment. On 27 August 1999 the Crown presented a second indictment which superseded the first and accepted in discharge the pleas the prisoner then entered. In the circumstances it is proper to regard the prisoner as having pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. The offences of which he now stands convicted are as follows -

On 9 March 1998 at Marrickville he murdered Duc Hoang Do;

At the same time and place he robbed Toan Van Doan of certain property and at the same time used corporal violence upon him, occasioning him grievous bodily harm; and

At the same time and place he robbed Cong Hai Nguyen of certain property and at the same time used corporal violence upon him.

2   On 9 March 1998 the prisoner, who was addicted to the use of heroin and other drugs, went with six other young men or youths to a flat in Marrickville. They had bought heroin there before and intended to do so on this occasion. They arrived there some time after 10pm. The prisoner had already consumed drugs on that day. Between about 1pm and 5pm he had taken between seven and nine serepax pills and between 5pm and about 9.30pm had taken heroin.
3   When they arrived at the premises there were two men there, Cong Hai Nguyen and Duc Hoang Do. The young men purchased heroin from Cong Hai Nguyen and sat in the lounge smoking it. In the meantime Cong Hai Nguyen and Duc Hoang Do prepared or ate a meal in the kitchen.
4   One of the visitors suggested that they rob the two men of their money and drugs. Although there was an initial reluctance on the part two or more of them, including the prisoner, they all joined in the attack which followed. Duc Hoang Do walked into the room where they were and was immediately set upon and punched and kicked by a number of people. They left him apparently unconscious and bleeding in the corner of the room.
5   Cong Hai Nguyen entered the room and…

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 Hooker

Details

AGLC: R v Hooker [1999] NSWSC 896
Case: [1999] NSWSC 896
Decision Date: 2 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hooker, the accused was found guilty of murder and robbery. The appeal against sentence was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue for the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the young offender, considering his age and the circumstances of the crime. The court also had to consider whether the sentence met the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.

The court began by examining the gravity of the crimes committed, which involved taking a life and committing a robbery. It then considered the offender's age and background, including his previous good character and the impact of his actions on the victim's family. The court also assessed the sentencing principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in light of the offender's youth and potential for reform. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence imposed was appropriate, balancing the need for punishment with the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality.

The High Court upheld the sentence, affirming that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant sentencing principles. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the offender and the gravity of the crimes in determining an appropriate sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was neither excessive nor inadequate, taking into account the offender's age and potential for rehabilitation. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No additional orders were made by the court. The sentence imposed by the trial judge was affirmed as appropriate, considering the offender's age, the nature of the crimes, and the principles of sentencing.

Orders