R v Robert Martin Hicks - [2013] NSWSC 1324

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Robert Martin HICKS [2013] NSWSC 1324
Hearing dates: 2 August 2013
Decision date: 19 September 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adams J
Decision:
Sentence of 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years and 9 months to commence on 10 August 2011. The earliest date upon which the offender will be eligible for parole is 10 May 2024.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - murder - guilty plea entered at a later stage - remorse demonstrated by the behaviour of the offender immediately after the offence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Robert Martin Hicks (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
H Baker (Crown)
P Winch (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Offender)

File Number(s): 2011/258140

Judgment

Introduction

On 3 May 2013 the offender Robert Martin Hicks pleaded guilty to the offence of murder, committed on 10 August 2011. The victim was Patricia Newman, with whom he was then in a relationship. The offender was arrested at the scene and charged with Ms Newman's murder. On 31 August 2012 he was committed for trial. On 2 November 2012 he was arraigned on the present indictment and pleaded not guilty. A trial date of 20 May 2013 was fixed. On 15 April 2013 the offender's solicitor informed the Crown that he would plead guilty to murder and, on 3 May 2013, on re-arraignment he did so. He adhered to that plea when the matter came before me for sentence on 2 August 2013.

The maximum penalty for murder is imprisonment for life and it carries a prescribed non-parole period of 20 years: s 19A(1), Crimes Act 1900, Table in Div 1A of Pt 4, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Facts

Tendered on the sentence proceedings was an agreed statement of facts. The following account is taken from that document.

In 2011 Ms Newman lived in a unit of a building in Lalor Park with her son. The offender, with whom she was in a relationship, lived in another unit in the same building. Both were regular users of illegal drugs. In the course of the relationship, neighbours stated that they frequently heard arguments between the couple. There were also reported incidents of domestic violence.

At about 9am on Wednesday 10 August 2011 a neighbour saw Ms Newman enter the offender's unit and, shortly afterwards, heard them as they left, obviously discussing drugs which Ms Newman had obtained. About half an hour later the couple went to Ms Newman's unit and then, accompanied by Ms Newman's son, they walked together to the nearby shops. After Mr Newman withdrew some money and gave it to his mother for rent he left the pair together. He said they had not been arguing whilst he was with them that morning and they "seemed to be fine". However, it appears that the couple were…

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 Robert Martin Hicks

Details

AGLC: R v Robert Martin Hicks [2013] NSWSC 1324
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1324
Decision Date: 19 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Robert Martin Hicks, the defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Hicks killed his partner and attempted to make the crime appear as a suicide. The matter proceeded to the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The appeal raised several critical legal issues, primarily focusing on the appropriate weight to be given to the defendant's remorse demonstrated by his actions immediately following the offence. Hicks did not enter a guilty plea until after the trial had commenced, complicating the assessment of his remorse. The Court of Appeal needed to determine whether the trial judge correctly assessed the evidence of remorse and whether it should have influenced the sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the evidence of remorse, noting Hicks's behaviour immediately after the offence, which included actions that suggested a lack of remorse. Despite this, the trial judge had also considered other factors, including the premeditation and brutality of the crime. The appellate court concluded that the trial judge had correctly balanced these factors and imposed a sentence that was both fair and proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence handed down by the trial judge, with no alterations made to the term of imprisonment or the conditions of parole eligibility.

Orders