Legal Research
Cases
R v Hoskins

R v Hoskins

Case [2004] NSWCCA 236 14 July 2004

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Plea Bargain

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v LEONARD WILLIAM HOSKINS [2004] NSWCCA 236

HEARING DATE(S): 21 June 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 July 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Levine J at 2; Hulme J at 70

DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed.; 2. Sentences imposed in the District Court on 14 November 2003 are set aside.; 3. The respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years to date from 14 November 2004 which sentence is to expire on 13 November 2010. A non-parole period of 4 years is fixed to date from 14 November 2004 and to expire on 13 November 2008.

CATCHWORDS: Crown appeal - manifest inadequacy - Crimes Act 1900 s33 - malicious wounding with intent - Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s56(3A)- assault by convicted inmate - partial concurrence - discount for plea - discount for assistance to authorities constituted by partial admissions only

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s33
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s23, s56
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s5D

CASES CITED: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Mehta (1991) 23 NSWLR 84
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295
Regina v Armstrong [2000] NSWCCA 14
Regina v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152
Regina v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
Regina v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
Regina v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
Regina v Fyffe [2002] NSWSC 751
Regina v PPB [1999] NSWCCA 360
Regina v Reynolds [2004] NSWCCA 51
Regina v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

PARTIES :

REGINA
(Appellant)
v
LEONARD WILLIAM HOSKINS
(Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60535/04

COUNSEL:
P Power SC
(Appellant)
A P Cook
(Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh
(Appellant)
S O'Connor
(Respondent)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/51/0065

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Ellis DCJ

60535 OF 2004

GILES JA
LEVINE J
HULME J
WEDNESDAY 14 JULY 2004

REGINA v LEONARD WILLIAM HOSKINS

Judgment

1 GILES JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Levine J in draft. I agree with them, save that on re-sentencing I would totally cumulate the sentence for the s33 offence upon the sentence imposed by Freeman DCJ. The offence was serious, and recognition of deterrence of which Barr J spoke in R v Fyffe [2002] NSWSC 751 at [33] in my opinion requires no less even upon re-sentencing on a Crown appeal. Since Hulme J agrees with Levine J, I will not elaborate.

2 LEVINE J: Pursuant to s5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 the Director of Public Prosecutions appeals against the sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Ellis on the Respondent at the Grafton District Court on the 14 November 2003.

3 On 7 July 2003 at Lismore District Court, the respondent pleaded guilty on arraignment before her Honour Judge Morgan to a charge that “On 12 December 2002 at Grafton he did maliciously wound Michael Christopher Lusty with intent thereby to do him grievous bodily harm.” That is an offence provided for by s33…

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 [2004] NSWCCA 236
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 236
Decision Date: 14 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a Crown appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant, Hoskins, who was convicted of malicious wounding with intent. Hoskins had pleaded guilty to the offence, which occurred while he was serving a sentence for another crime. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and the appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate under the Crimes Act 1900, section 33, and whether the sentence should be reviewed considering the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, section 56(3A). The court also needed to determine the appropriate weight to give to the discounts for the plea and for Hoskins' partial admissions to authorities.

In determining the adequacy of the sentence, the court considered the principles of sentencing and the circumstances of the offence. It found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate due to the severity of the assault and the fact that it was committed while Hoskins was already serving a sentence. The court also noted the discount for the guilty plea and the discount for Hoskins' assistance to authorities, which was limited to his partial admissions. The court recognised that the partial admissions did not fully assist the authorities but still warranted a discount. The court concluded that the sentence should be increased but not to the extent that the Crown sought. The court decided to partially concur with the Crown's appeal, resulting in an increased sentence for Hoskins.

Orders