R v Hyde

Case [2020] ACTSC 301


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:  R v Hyde
Citation:  [2020] ACTSC 301
Hearing Dates:  29 May, 17 June, 13 August and 10 November 2020
Decision Date:  10 November 2020
Before:  Murrell CJ
Decision:  Sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, suspended on a good
behaviour order with additional conditions.

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Trafficking in controlled substance – Unauthorised possession of weapon – Possession of property suspected to be proceeds of crime – Successful completion of rehabilitation program

Legislation Cited:  Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 18
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 35
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 114C
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 21A
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 603(7)
Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) s 5
Cases Cited:  Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5
Nchouki v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 28
R v Bezan [2004] NSWCCA 342; 147 A Crim R 430
R v Day (1998) 100 A Crim R 275
R v Harmouche [2020] ACTSC 194
R v Hyde [2017] ACTSC 337
R v MacDonnell [2002] NSWCCA 34; 128 A Crim R 44
R v Nchouki [2017] ACTSC 387
R v Speechly [2002] NSWCCA 300; 133 A Crim R 26
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584
Parties:  The Queen (Crown)
Natalie Marie Hyde (Offender)
Representation:  Counsel
S McFarland (Crown)
A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Number:  SCC 348 of 2019
MURRELL CJ: 
Introduction 

1.       The offender pleaded guilty to the following offences committed on 11 September 2019:

(a) Count 1: trafficking in a controlled substance other than cannabis (methylamphetamine), contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code).

The maximum penalty for this offence is $160,000, 10 years’ imprisonment or

both.

(b) Counts 2 and 3: unauthorised possession of a prohibited weapon (hand-held electric charged devices), contrary to s 5 of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) (Prohibited Weapons Act).

The maximum penalty for this offence is $80,000, five years’ imprisonment or

both.

(c) Count 4: possessing property suspected of being the proceeds of crime ($6,100), contrary to s 114C of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

The maximum penalty for this offence is $32,000, two years’ imprisonment or

both.

2.       She is also before the Court for breaching a good behaviour order associated with a suspended sentence that was imposed by Mossop J in October 2017 and for breaching a six-month good behaviour order imposed by the Magistrates Court for a Commonwealth offence of trespass.

3.       In relation to Counts 1, 2 and 3, pleas were entered in the Magistrates Court on the fifth mention of the charges, and before a brief of evidence had been prepared. Count 4 was added later and the plea was entered on the second mention for that charge.

4. Although the pleas were not entered at the earliest opportunity, I propose…

Continue reading R v Hyde

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hyde [2020] ACTSC 301
Case
[2020] ACTSC 301
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

behaviour bond for 3 years, with 6 months’ imprisonment to be served on home detention. The defendant, Hyde, was charged with trafficking in a controlled substance, unauthorised possession of a weapon, and possession of property suspected to be proceeds of crime. The court was required to consider these charges and determine an appropriate sentence. The key legal issues included the gravity of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and his participation in a rehabilitation program.

The court found that the offences were serious but noted the defendant's successful completion of a rehabilitation program, which demonstrated a significant change in his circumstances. The court considered the sentencing principles of deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and protection of the community. It took into account the defendant's prior criminal record and the potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that a suspended sentence with home detention was an appropriate outcome given the circumstances.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of providing second chances to individuals who demonstrate genuine rehabilitation efforts. It also considered the need to deter others from engaging in similar criminal activities. The court concluded that the imposed sentence would serve these objectives while allowing the defendant to reintegrate into society under supervision. The court ordered that Hyde be sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, suspended on a good behaviour bond for 3 years, with 6 months’ imprisonment to be served on home detention.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, suspended on a good

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.