R v Hunt - [2002] NSWSC 66

CITATION: R v Hunt [2002] NSWSC 66

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70047/01

HEARING DATE(S): 12-16/11/2001
19-22/11/2001
24/1/2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 19 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Leo Vincent Hunt

JUDGMENT OF: Dowd J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr P Barnett- Crown
Mr A Parker- Prisoner

SOLICITORS: Mr H Fitzhardinge- DPP (NSW)
Ms R Parker- Prisoner (LAC)

CATCHWORDS: Murder - Multiple stabbing - Subjective factors - Age of offender - Aboriginality - Health status - Victim's impact statement - Sentencing principles

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Crump (Unreported, NSWCCA, 30 May 1994).
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349.
R v Elemes [2000] NSWCCA 235.
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58.
R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502.
R v Ibbs (1987) 163 CLR 447.
R v L (Unreported, NSWCCA, 17 June 1996).
R v Mansour (1999) 29 MVR 409.
R v Purdey (1993) 65 A Crim R 441.
R v Rushby [1997] 1 NSWLR 594.
R v Russell (1995) 84 A Crim R 386.
R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587.
R v Sopher (1993) 70 A Crim R 570.
R v Stafrace (1997) 96 A Crim R 452.
R v Twala (Unreported, NSWCCA, 4 November 1994).
R v Vachalec [1981] 1 NSWLR 351.
R v Veen (No 2)(1987-1988) 164 CLR 465.

DECISION: 1. The prisoner is sentenced to serve a term of 14 years imprisonment, to commence on 9 November 2001, and he is to serve a non-parole period of ten years imprisonment to commence on 9 November 2001 and to conclude on 8 November 2011 from which time he will be eligible for parole; 2. It is requested that as far as is possible, the prisoner be allowed to serve his term of imprisonment at Cessnock Correctional Centre; and 3. When the prisoner is released to parole, there should be a longer period of supervision during that adjustment period.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

DOWD J

19 February 2002

70047/01 R v Leo Vincent Hunt
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, Leo Vincent Hunt, pleaded not guilty on 12 November 2001 before a jury to one count in an indictment presented against him at Tamworth, alleging that on 11 June 2000 at Uralla in this State, he did murder Marion Louise Reid. The jury found him guilty.

2 At approximately 8.30pm on Saturday 10 June 2000, a police officer from Uralla Police Station, Constable Styles, was called to a residence at 1/20 Queen Street, Uralla, concerning a domestic altercation and alleged assault. On arrival, Const. Styles spoke to the deceased, Ms Marion Louise Reid (also known as ‘Mary Reid’), who told him that she had been assaulted by her boyfriend, Mr Leo Vincent Hunt, the prisoner.

3 The prisoner was then asked to leave the residence. Prior to leaving, he turned to the deceased and said in front of the…

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 Hunt

Details

AGLC: R v Hunt [2002] NSWSC 66
Case: [2002] NSWSC 66
Decision Date: 19 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hunt, the respondent was convicted of murder by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The murder involved the stabbing of the victim, resulting in multiple fatal injuries. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors. The legal issues that the court had to resolve involved the assessment of the subjective factors, such as the age of the offender at the time of the offence, the respondent's Aboriginality, his health status, and the impact of the crime on the victim's family, as reflected in the victim's impact statement. The court also needed to consider general sentencing principles applicable to murder cases in Victoria.

The Supreme Court of Victoria carefully considered the mitigating factors presented in the sentencing hearing. The age of the respondent at the time of the offence was younger than average for a person committing such a heinous crime, and his Aboriginality was noted as a factor that might be relevant to the sentencing process. Additionally, the court took into account the respondent's health status, which could impact his capacity to participate in rehabilitation programs. The victim's impact statement was also considered, as it provided insight into the profound emotional and psychological effects the crime had on the victim's family. The court balanced these factors against the gravity of the crime, ensuring that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offence and aligned with general sentencing principles for murder in Victoria.

The Supreme Court of Victoria, in determining the sentence, concluded that the mitigating factors presented were significant but did not outweigh the severity of the crime. The court acknowledged the respondent's age, health status, and Aboriginality as factors that could inform a more lenient sentence but ultimately found that the nature of the offence and its impact on the victim's family necessitated a substantial custodial term. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to uphold the rule of law in its sentencing decision. After weighing all the factors, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period, recognising both the mitigating circumstances and the necessity to protect society.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for the respondent, with a specified non-parole period. This decision reflects the court's careful consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case, ensuring that the sentence was both just and appropriate under the circumstances. The court's reasoning highlights the importance of balancing individual circumstances with the broader principles of criminal justice in Victoria.

Orders