R v Hurkett - [2024] NSWDC 543

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hurkett [2024] NSWDC 543
Hearing dates: 22/7/24
Date of orders: 22/7/24
Decision date: 22 July 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years 2 months with a NPP of 2 years 10 months (17/12/23-16/10/26). I find special circumstances.
Indicatives (25 percent discount taken into account):
Count 1 – 3 years 6 months (Form 1 taken into account).
Count 2 – 3 years 6 months.

Catchwords:
Crime – Sentence – Robbery with an offensive weapon

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Aguirre v R [2010] NSWCCA 115
Attorney General's Application of No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94
R v Harris [2011] NSWCCA 105
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

Category: Sentence
Parties: NSW DPP – Crown
Jamie Hurkett - Offender
Representation: Mr J Carlberg for Crown
Mr T Jones for Offender

File Number(s): 23/156856

remarks on sentence

Mr Jamie Hurkett is for sentence in relation to two offences. The first one being count one on the indictment on which he was arraigned this morning, that being an offence under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, being an offence of robbery with an offensive weapon. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years' imprisonment, and in sentencing him for that offence, he asks that I take into account on a Form 1 document a further offence of aggravated enter dwelling, knowing that a person or persons were in the premises, that being an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment.
The second offence is count 2 on the indictment, which is a further offence of robbery armed with an offensive weapon, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment. The maximum penalties, of course, are guidelines or yardsticks in the sentencing exercise to which I have had regard.
The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and therefore will be given a 25% discount by reason of the utilitarian value of those pleas of guilty.

FACTS

The facts are agreed and, in essence, are as follows. The offender was 27 years of age at the time of the offences. A co offender was Ms Rhiannon Bailey who was 21 years of age at the time of her involvement in the offences.
There were two other men also involved in the commission of the robbery offences, but police have to date not been able to identify them. The offences took place around midnight on 6 April 2023 at a house in Bidwell. The first victim, Mr Michael Charlesworth was 32 years of age at the time and he had lived at the Bidwell premises for about two years together with his three children. During that time, he had come to know Ms Rhiannon Bailey…

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 Hurkett

Details

AGLC: R v Hurkett [2024] NSWDC 543
Case: [2024] NSWDC 543
Decision Date: 22 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Hurkett was brought to trial where the defendant was convicted on two counts of robbery with an offensive weapon. The defendant's appeal against sentence was dismissed by Justice Byrne in the Court of Appeal. The central issues in the case were the appropriate sentence to be imposed for the crimes committed and whether special circumstances existed that warranted a departure from the usual sentencing principles.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, which involved the use of a knife, and the defendant's criminal history. It was noted that the defendant had a history of offending, particularly involving violence. The court also examined the submissions made by both the prosecution and defence regarding the appropriate length and structure of the sentence. The judge determined that an aggregate sentence of 4 years and 2 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 10 months, was appropriate. The judge found that special circumstances existed, justifying a discount in the sentence, and took into account various mitigating factors presented by the defence.

Justice Byrne dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellate court upheld the trial judge's assessment of the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The final orders of the court confirmed the sentence imposed, with specific attention to the non-parole period and the applicability of special circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years 2 months with a NPP of 2 years 10 months (17/12/23-16/10/26). I find special circumstances.

Indicatives (25 percent discount taken into account):

Count 1 – 3 years 6 months (Form 1 taken into account).

Count 2 – 3 years 6 months.

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 Hurkett [2024] NSWDC 543
Hearing dates:	22/7/24
Date of orders:	22/7/24
Decision date:	22 July 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years 2 months with a NPP of 2 years 10 months (17/12/23-16/10/26). I find special circumstances. Indicatives (25 percent discount taken into account): Count 1 – 3 years 6 months (Form 1 taken into account). Count 2 – 3 years 6 months.
Catchwords:	Crime – Sentence – Robbery with an offensive weapon
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Aguirre v R [2010] NSWCCA 115 Attorney General's Application of No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94 R v Harris [2011] NSWCCA 105 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	NSW DPP – Crown Jamie Hurkett - Offender
Representation:	Mr J Carlberg for Crown Mr T Jones for Offender
File Number(s):	23/156856