R v Robert Samuel Hookey - [2004] NSWCCA 223

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Robert Samuel Hookey [2004] NSWCCA 223

FILE NUMBER(S):
60116/04

HEARING DATE(S): 1 July 2004

JUDGMENT DATE: 01/07/2004

PARTIES:
Regina v Robert Samuel Hookey

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J Dunford J Howie J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0051

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Shillington ADCJ

COUNSEL:
Dr P J P Power SC - Crown
C Smith - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh - Crown
Legal Aid Commission - Applicant

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Sentencing - special circumstances - whether failure to find was an error - no lesser sentence warranted in law.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act
Justices Act

DECISION:
Application for leave granted - appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60116/04
STUDDERT J
DUNFORD J
HOWIE J
Thursday, 1 July 2004

R v Robert Samuel HOOKEY

Judgment

HOWIE J This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court by Shillington ADCJ. There is only one ground of appeal being in effect that his Honour erred in not finding special circumstances and thus not reducing the non-parole period below the statutory ratio.
The applicant pleaded guilty to three offences in the Local Court under s 51A of the Justices Act and was committed for sentence to the District Court. The first offence was the most serious being an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. That is an offence contrary to s 33 of the Crimes Act for which a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years is prescribed. The second offence was an assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 59 and for which the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment. The third offence was the least serious offence and concerned the stealing of $200 for which the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.
In addition the applicant asked his Honour to take into account two offences on a Form 1 being a further charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and a charge of threatening a witness contrary to s 326(1) of the Crimes Act.
The applicant was sentenced as follows: for the s 33 offence and taking the matters into account on the form 1, imprisonment for 4 years with a non-parole period of 3 years; for the s 59 offence, imprisonment for a fixed term of 1 year; for the stealing offence, imprisonment for a fixed term of 6 months. Each of the offences was dated from 6 July 2003 and the applicant is eligible for release to parole on 5 July 2006. The sentences were backdated to take into account a period during which the applicant was in remand and before being granted bail.
The facts of the matters were set out in an agreed statement of facts. The first offence in time was that under s 59. On the evening of 8 January 2002 the applicant, in company with another unidentified person, attended premises…

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 Samuel Hookey

Details

AGLC: R v Robert Samuel Hookey [2004] NSWCCA 223
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 223
Decision Date: 1 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Robert Samuel Hookey, was convicted of a serious criminal offence and the case came before the court for sentencing. The appellant was convicted of charges including murder, manslaughter, and other related offences. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as any special circumstances that might be relevant.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the failure to find certain mitigating factors during the sentencing process constituted an error that warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court also needed to determine whether, in light of the evidence and circumstances, a lesser sentence was warranted in law. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed was excessive and that the failure to find certain mitigating factors was a significant oversight that should result in a reduced sentence.

In its decision, the court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that no lesser sentence was warranted in law. The court found that the failure to find certain mitigating factors did not constitute an error that would necessitate a reduction in the sentence. The court considered the gravity of the offences, the circumstances in which they were committed, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes and that there were no special circumstances that would warrant a lesser sentence. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles. The court's reasoning demonstrated a careful consideration of the appellant's arguments and a thorough application of the law to the facts of the case.

The court's final orders affirmed the sentence imposed on the appellant, rejecting the appeal against the severity of the sentence. The court found that the sentence was just and appropriate in all the circumstances, and that no reduction was warranted. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the legal principles and the evidence presented in the case.

Orders