R v Jarryd Lee Hayne

[2021] NSWDC 242

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Jarryd Lee HAYNE [2021] NSWDC 242

Hearing dates:

8 March 2021 to 22 March 2021

Date of orders:

06 May 2021

Decision date:

06 May 2021

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

H. L. Syme DCJ

Decision:

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of five years and nine months, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months.

Catchwords:

Re-trial; Finding of guilt by Jury; Alternative charges; Aggravating circumstances; Offending in home of Complainant by invitation; Lack of remorse; Hardship; Loss of employment

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

s 61I Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:

Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21

Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28 in 2017

R v May [1999] NSWCCA 40 at [7]

Aliabadi v R [2020] NSWCCA 224

Rahman v R [2020] NSWCCA 13

Cordeiro v R [2019] NSWCCA 308

Naveed v R [2019] NSWCCA 149

Kenny v R [2010] NSWCCA 6

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

The Crown
Jarryd Lee Hayne

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr B. Costello (Crown)
Mr R. Pontello SC (Offender)

Solicitor:
Ms M. Giles Finucane
Ms P. Musgrave

File Number(s):

2018/00355835

Publication restriction:

Statutory prohibition on publication in relation to identity of the complainant under s578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

SENTENCE

HER HONOUR: On 21 March this year a jury found Jarryd Lee Hayne guilty of two counts contrary to s 61I Crimes Act 1900 - sexual intercourse without consent. Each was an alternative charge on the aggravated form of the offences. By its verdict the jury rejected the offender’s account and accepted the victim’s evidence. My directions required this conclusion to return the verdict they did.

The fact that the jury did not find the reckless aspect of the 61J offences proved does not detract from the jury’s acceptance of the victim’s account. The infliction of the injury or that it amounted to actual bodily harm was not in dispute on the aggravated charge, only the offender’s state of mind in relation to the infliction of that harm.

Counsel in effect submitted that it may have been accidental. Accordingly, the fact that the jury did not find a particular mental state of recklessness proved beyond reasonable doubt in relation to a specific aspect of the charge does not detract from the jury’s overall acceptance of the victim’s account. I will refer to that later as well.

The maximum penalty for the offences of which Hayne was found guilty is 14 years and each carries with it a standard non-parole period of seven years. The Court must take into account these legislative guideposts in framing the sentence after findings of objective seriousness and other considerations personal to the offender.

In assessing the objective seriousness of the offences it is necessary to make findings on the facts that were before the Court and on which the jury returned verdicts. I acknowledge that any finding of fact must be to the criminal standard and reasons must be given to explain any…