R v Jonathon Hancocks

Case [2020] NSWDC 601

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jonathon Hancocks [2020] NSWDC 601
Hearing dates: 2 July 2020
Date of orders: 2 July 2020
Decision date: 02 July 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Priestley SC, DCJ
Decision:

See [16]

Catchwords:

CRIME — Violent offences — Reckless wounding

CRIME — Public order offences — Affray

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act1900 NSW

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW

Cases Cited:

Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39

KR v R [2012] NSWCCA 32

Field v R [2020] NSWCCA 105

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Hancocks (Accused)
Representation: Webb Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
James Solicitor for the Accused.
File Number(s): 2019/00223177
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

Contents

Judgment

Introduction

Form 1 procedure

Standard non-parole period

The facts

Objective seriousness

Section 21A.

Subjective case

Psychologists report and Sentencing Assessment Report

Criminal record

Covid 19

Parity

Special circumstances

Sentencing considerations

Orders

Judgment

Introduction

  1. Jonathon Hancocks, the offender, appears for sentence on one count of reckless wounding in company under s35(3) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 4 years. Additionally there is an offence to be dealt with under the Form 1 procedure. That is an offence of affray under section 93C(1) of the Crimes Act which has a maximum sentence of 10 years.

  2. The offender was born on 7 February 2000 and so is presently 20 years old. The date of the offending is 1 January 2019 so that the offender was 18 years old at the time of the offending. The offender was arrested for this matter on 18 July 2019, at which time he was in custody after being arrested on 14 January 2019 for breaching appeal bail. He has been in custody solely in relation to this matter since 31 October 2019.

Form 1 procedure

  1. In regards to the Form 1 procedure it is important that the focus remains on the principal offence for which the offender is being sentenced. The procedure allows that in doing this greater weight may be given to the elements of personal deterrence and the community’s entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences. Those two elements are entitled to greater weight than they may otherwise be given when sentencing for the primary offence; see Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ.

Standard non-parole period

  1. The standard non-parole period is a guidepost in the same way as the maximum sentence may be considered a guidepost. . The matter is to be taken into account together with the maximum penalty as part of the instinctive synthesis process; see Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 at [27]. Thus it is a matter to be taken into account with all others with the requirement upon me to set out the reasons why I determine the non-parole…

Continue reading R v Jonathon Hancocks

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Jonathon Hancocks [2020] NSWDC 601
Case
[2020] NSWDC 601
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, Jonathon Hancocks, against his conviction and sentence for reckless wounding and affray. The trial judge found him guilty of these offences following a physical altercation in a public place. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was also responsible for determining the appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge correctly applied the principles of provocation and self-defence, and if the evidence supported the convictions for the offences of reckless wounding and affray.

The court considered the defence arguments that the appellant acted in self-defence and was provoked. The defence submitted that the appellant's actions were a response to the aggressive behaviour of the complainant. However, the court found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles. The court held that the appellant's actions were not justified as self-defence and that there was no sufficient evidence of provocation. The court further found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant engaged in a public affray and caused reckless wounding to the complainant.

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions for both reckless wounding and affray. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and properly considered the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's convictions and sentence were affirmed. The court noted that the nature and severity of the assault, along with the public nature of the affray, warranted the original sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [16]

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.