Regina v Hawkins - [2001] NSWSC 420

CITATION: Regina v Hawkins [2001] NSWSC 420

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70074/00

HEARING DATE(S): 10/05/01;11/05/01;14/05/01;15/05/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 May 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v David John Hawkins

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Magistrate - A Murray

COUNSEL : Mr Paul Lynch - Crown
Mr Ian Barker QC - Prisoner

SOLICITORS:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Sydney - Crown
Legal Aid New South Wales - Prisoner

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - Manslaughter - Diminished responsibility - Effects of prescribed drug - Extraordinary circumstances - Act out of character - Immediate confession - Plea of guilty - Criteria for sentencing -

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (Ss.22;23(1)(2);24(a);44(2);50(1))

CASES CITED: R v Hill (1980-1981) 3 ACrim.R 397
R v Low (1991-1992) 57 A Crim.R 8
R v Dodd (1991-1992) 57 A Crim. R 349
R v Blacklidge (NSWCCA) 12 December 1995 (unreported)
Regina v Thomson;Regina v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: Sentence to imprisonment for three years commencing on 1 August 1999 and concluding on 31 July 2001; Non-parole period set as two years from 1 August 1999 expiring on 31 July 2001; Order the release of the prisoner on parole at the end of the non-parole period.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

O’KEEFE J

Thursday, 24 May 2001

No: 70074/00 - REGINA v DAVID JOHN HAWKINS

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

2 David John Hawkins (the prisoner) was indicted for murdering Margaret Wilhelmina Hawkins at Tumbarumba on 1 August 1999. He pleaded not guilty to her murder but guilty to her manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The Crown accepted such plea in satisfaction of the indictment. As a consequence it falls to the court to sentence the prisoner.

BACKGROUND

3 The prisoner was born on the Channel Island of Guernsey on 10 February 1925. He was the youngest of ten children but despite there being such a large family their circumstances were reasonably comfortable. His father was a good and hardworking man. He was emotionally distant and could display temper at times but there is no suggestion that he was ever violent. The prisoner was close to his mother whom he described as “a nice easy-going woman”. She was occupied full time in looking after the family. She did this well and whilst the children did not want for anything, they were not spoilt.

4 The prisoner appears to have had a childhood in which there was no significant abuse, neglect or trauma, except that in June 1940 the island was occupied by the military forces of the German Third Reich. This continued until the cessation of hostilities in Europe in May 1945. However, except for the island being bombed variously by the Americans, the British and the Germans, the prisoner was not exposed to violence nor was he at any time exposed to the sight of violent death. On one occasion he was interrogated by the Gestapo, but he…

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 Regina v Hawkins

Details

AGLC: Regina v Hawkins [2001] NSWSC 420
Case: [2001] NSWSC 420
Decision Date: 24 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Hawkins was a case heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, involving the sentencing of a defendant, Mr Hawkins, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The circumstances of the manslaughter involved the defendant taking a prescribed medication, which affected his mental state and contributed to him committing the act of manslaughter. The court had to consider the effects of the prescribed drug and whether it amounted to diminished responsibility. Additionally, the court was required to assess whether the circumstances surrounding the act were extraordinary enough to warrant a departure from the standard sentencing guidelines.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's diminished responsibility, due to the effects of the prescribed drug, should be taken into account in sentencing, and whether the circumstances of the case were extraordinary enough to warrant a departure from the usual sentencing criteria. The court also had to consider the immediate confession and plea of guilty as mitigating factors. The defendant's actions, while out of character, required careful evaluation in light of the mitigating and aggravating factors present.

The court found that the defendant's diminished responsibility, due to the prescribed medication, did indeed play a significant role in his actions and was a relevant factor in determining the sentence. The court also acknowledged the extraordinary nature of the circumstances, given that the act was out of character for the defendant and he had made an immediate confession. These factors, along with the plea of guilty, were taken into account as mitigating circumstances. The court, however, balanced these factors against the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. Ultimately, the court determined that while the mitigating factors warranted some leniency, they did not justify a significant departure from the standard sentencing guidelines. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the defendant's culpability while also taking into account the mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders