R v Hoskins - [2020] NSWDC 315

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v HOSKINS [2020] NSWDC 315
Hearing dates: 13 February 2020
Date of orders: 20 February 2020
Decision date: 20 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:
See orders at [58]

Catchwords: CRIME — Property offences — Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence
CRIME — Violent offences — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
CRIME — Public order offences — Affray
CRIME — Violent offences — Reckless wounding
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crime Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW)
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Offender (Hoskins)
Representation: Mr Webb for the Crown
Mr Bianchino for the Offender

File Number(s): 2019/00035076
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

Judgment

Introduction

Douglas Edward Hoskins, the offender, was born on 21 March 1980 and appears today for sentence on five offences committed on 31 January 2019. He has been held in custody in respect of these matters solely from that date. There are no matters to be dealt with on a form 1, nor is there any certificate for related or backup offences. The offences are two counts of reckless wounding, one of affray, one of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one of aggravated breaking and entering and committing a serious indictable offence, namely assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The offender was committed for sentence from the Local Court so that his plea is considered to have been made at the earliest possible time which has a clear utilitarian value and will be reflected by a 25% discount on sentence.
I propose setting out so far as is relevant the facts of each of the five offences and assess each offences objective seriousness before then turning to subjective matters. I will deal with the offences in the order in which they occurred. I take the facts from the agreed facts document which is at tab 2 of the Crown bundle which was tendered and became exhibit A in the proceedings.
On the day of the offending the offender was consuming alcohol and was at a location in Coffs Harbour where he was staying at the time. The facts of these offences involve a range of people between whom there is some association either by way of acquaintance or family connection; for example one of the victims of one of the reckless wounding charges considered the offender her uncle though in fact he is the cousin of her partner.
In relation to all of the offences the conduct occurred either in or at the surrounds of people’s homes. I have taken this fact into account, but not in respect of the s112 charge as I see this aspect as part of the elements of the charge.
The lead up to the first offence which is an offence of reckless wounding in breach of section 35 (4) of the Crimes Act was an argument between SW and the offender leading to the offender leaving SW’s premises followed by SW hearing glass smashing and her…

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 Hoskins

Details

AGLC: R v Hoskins [2020] NSWDC 315
Case: [2020] NSWDC 315
Decision Date: 20 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hoskins, was convicted of various criminal offences including break and enter with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, affray, and reckless wounding. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of various provisions of the Crimes Act and whether the conduct of the appellant warranted separate convictions for each offence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the appellant's actions constituted separate offences and whether the convictions could stand for the various offences charged. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the break and enter with intent offence and the assault occasioning actual bodily harm were distinct offences or if they were part of a continuous act, which would warrant a single conviction. The court also needed to determine if the convictions for affray and reckless wounding were valid when considered alongside the other offences.

The court held that the convictions for break and enter with intent and assault occasioning actual bodily harm were not separate offences but part of a continuous act, leading to the conclusion that only one conviction was appropriate for these offences. The court found that the appellant's actions during the incident were part of a single course of conduct. The convictions for affray and reckless wounding were upheld as they constituted separate acts that were not absorbed by the other offences. The reasoning was based on the principles of criminal liability and the need to ensure that each offence was properly identified and punished.

The final orders of the court included the quashing of the conviction for break and enter with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, with a new conviction for a single count of aggravated burglary. The convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, affray, and reckless wounding were affirmed. The appellant's sentence was then reconsidered in light of the court's findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [58]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v HOSKINS [2020] NSWDC 315
Hearing dates:	13 February 2020
Date of orders:	20 February 2020
Decision date:	20 February 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:	See orders at [58]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Property offences — Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence CRIME — Violent offences — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm CRIME — Public order offences — Affray CRIME — Violent offences — Reckless wounding
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crime Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Offender (Hoskins)
Representation:	Mr Webb for the Crown Mr Bianchino for the Offender
File Number(s):	2019/00035076
Publication restriction:	Unrestricted