Legal Research
Cases
R v Hooper

R v Hooper

Case [2004] NSWCCA 10 11 February 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Hooper [2004] NSWCCA 10

HEARING DATE(S): 17 December 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1; Howie J at 70; Smart AJ at 71

DECISION: See para 69

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal - Sentence - Armed Robbery - The Queen v De Simoni - Parity in Sentencing

LEGISLATION CITED: s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
Crimes Act

CASES CITED: The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 at 389;
R v Booth (unrep) CCA 12 November 1993);
R v Channells (unrep) CCA 30 September 1997);
R v JB [1999] NSWCCA 93;
R v Hector [2003] NSWCCA 196;
R v Young [2003] NSWCCA 276;
R v Quatami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369;
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606;

PARTIES :
Regina v Stephen Ronald Hooper

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60379/03

COUNSEL: (A) D T Spears
(R) D M L Woodburne

SOLICITORS: (A) P White
(R) S Kavanagh

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0665

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Berman DCJ

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
060379/03

JAMES J

HOWIE J

SMART AJ

Wednesday, 11 February 2004

REGINA v Steven Ronald HOOPER

Judgment

1 JAMES J: Steven Ronald Hooper has applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on him in the District Court on 13 December 2002 by his Honour Judge Berman S.C.

2 On 4 November 2002 a joint trial of the applicant and of an alleged co-offender Dennis John Adams had been fixed to commence in the District Court before Judge Berman. The indictment proposed to be presented at the joint trial contained a large number of counts.

3 On 4 November 2002 counsel for the applicant made an application that the applicant be tried separately from Adams and a further application that there be separate trials of certain counts against the applicant. Judge Berman held that the applicant should be tried separately from Adams but then held that there should be a joint trial of all the charges against the applicant. The separate trial of the applicant was to take place before the separate trial of Adams.

4 On 6 November 2002, before any trial before a jury had commenced, Judge Berman was informed that discussions between the legal representatives of the parties had been fruitful and that the applicant would plead guilty to four counts in an amended indictment. On 6 November 2002 an indictment containing four counts was presented and the applicant was formally arraigned. The charges against the applicant in the indictment presented on 6 November 2002 were as follows:-

1. On 16 April 2001 at Chipping Norton in the State of New South Wales, being then armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a rifle, did rob Ihab Kassir of certain property, to wit cash, the property of Neil Kassir trading as the Chipping Norton Newsagency.

2. On 16 April 2001 at Chipping Norton in the State of New South Wales, did maliciously discharge…

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 Hooper

Details

AGLC: R v Hooper [2004] NSWCCA 10
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 10
Decision Date: 11 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Hooper involved a dispute over the sentence imposed on the appellant for his involvement in an armed robbery. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was called upon to determine whether the sentence imposed was consistent with those imposed on others for similar offences. The appellant was convicted of his role in an armed robbery and was sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed the sentence, arguing that it was excessive in comparison to sentences imposed on others for similar crimes.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was consistent with the principle of parity in sentencing, as established in The Queen v De Simoni. This principle requires that sentences for similar offences be comparable, taking into account the circumstances of each case. The appellant argued that his sentence was harsher than those imposed on others for similar offences, and thus, it violated the principle of parity. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had adequately considered the principle of parity when imposing the sentence and whether the sentence was proportionate to the offence committed.

The High Court held that the principle of parity in sentencing required that sentences for similar offences be comparable, but it did not demand identical sentences. The court emphasised that the principle of parity was not a rigid rule but a guideline to ensure that sentences are fair and proportionate. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the principle of parity when imposing the sentence and had taken into account the specific circumstances of the appellant's case. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not excessive and was proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court.

Orders