R v William Edward Hamilton - [2013] NSWSC 1209

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v William Edward HAMILTON [2013] NSWSC 1209
Hearing dates: 21/08/2013
Decision date: 30 August 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
Taking into account the matter on the Form 1, sentenced to a non-parole period of 3 years, commencing 13 September 2010 and concluding 12 September 2013, with a remainder of term of a further 18 months' imprisonment, concluding 12 March 2015. First eligible for parole on 12 September 2013.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - accessory after the fact - no issue of principle - parity with co-offender - sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Mill v R [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Cowen [2008] NSWSC 104
Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
William Edward Hamilton (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
L Lungo (Crown)
J Fitzgerald (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/305866
Publication restriction: None

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: William Edward Hamilton has pleaded guilty to the charge of accessory after the fact of murder of Jay Riley in that he assisted the principal offender, Adam John Thompson, after Mr Thompson had murdered, to the knowledge of Mr Hamilton, the previously mentioned Mr Riley.

It is no part of the Crown case against Mr Hamilton that he knew beforehand that Mr Thompson was to rob and kill Mr Riley. It is the Crown case against Mr Hamilton that he assisted Mr Thompson, after he had killed Mr Riley, and particularly in counselling and assisting Mr Thompson in disposing of the firearm that was utilised and transporting Mr Thompson after he had disposed of the deceased's vehicle.

The assistance in the disposal of the murder weapon is the basis upon which the indictment is framed and the plea has been entered. The assistance in disposal of the deceased's vehicle is a matter raised on a Form 1, to be taken into account in the sentence to be imposed for the charge.

It is necessary to set out, as briefly as possible, the relevant facts, including the circumstances in which the murder was committed.

It is important to understand, in terms of motive, that the deceased, Mr Riley, was a mid-level drug supplier in the Lake Macquarie, Newcastle and central-Hunter areas.

The principal offender, now convicted of and sentenced for murder, Mr Thompson, first met the deceased through employment approximately one year before the murder occurred. Mr Riley began supplying Mr Thompson with drugs, for which arrangements were made by Mr Thompson contacting Mr Riley's mobile telephone number and thereafter meeting at a hotel in Cardiff. On one occasion they met at Mount Sugarloaf, on the side of the road, to transact a drug deal.

On Monday 14 December 2009, Mr Riley attended work. During the day, he became ill and left work to attend his doctor…

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 William Edward Hamilton

Details

AGLC: R v William Edward Hamilton [2013] NSWSC 1209
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1209
Decision Date: 30 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v William Edward Hamilton, the defendant appealed against his sentence for being an accessory after the fact to a serious armed robbery. The case was heard and determined in the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Hamilton was appropriate, particularly in relation to the principle of parity with his co-offenders.

The court had to assess whether the sentence of four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and two months was proportionate to the crime committed, considering the role of the defendant as an accessory after the fact. The court noted that the trial judge had correctly applied the principle of parity, taking into account the roles and involvement of all offenders in the crime. The defence argued that the sentence was excessive, but the prosecution contended that it was appropriate given the circumstances.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in imposing the sentence. The court held that the principle of parity had been correctly applied, and the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. The court further noted that no issue of principle had arisen that warranted interference with the sentence imposed. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No further orders were made by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Orders