Regina v Hayes - [2004] NSWSC 1195

CITATION: Regina v Hayes [2004] NSWSC 1195

HEARING DATE(S): 03/12/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 December 2004

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: M W Campbell AJ

DECISION: A term of imprisonment of six years and nine months with a non-parole period of four years. The sentence and the non-parole period to commence on 4 August 2004. Eligible to be released on parole on 3 August 2008.

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - Manslaughter - Plea - Parity

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1990 s24
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s21A,22,28(4)(b),44

CASES CITED: Postiglione v R (1995) 189 CLR 295
R v Previtera (1997) 94 ACrimR 76
R v Bollen (1998) 99 ACrimR 510

PARTIES :
Regina
Chantelle Jade Hayes

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2003/88

COUNSEL: L Wells (Crown)
G Wendler (Accused)

SOLICITORS:
R McMahon - DPP (Crown)
John Bettens & Co (Accused)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

M W CAMPBELL AJA

Monday 13 December 2004

2003/88 REGINA v HAYES
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR; On 11 October 2004 Chantelle Jade Hayes was arraigned before me on an indictment that charged that, on 22 April 2001 at Cabramatta in the State of New South Wales she did murder Michael Paul Guinan (“the deceased”). She pleaded not guilty to that charge but guilty of the alternative charge that she did unlawfully kill the deceased. The Crown accepted the plea in full satisfaction of the indictment. Evidence and submissions on sentence were taken on 3 December 2004 and the matter stood over until today for sentence.

Background to proceedings.

2 Three women were involved in the unlawful killing of the deceased Ms Hayes, Katty Vongsouvanh and Fialelei Loretta Namulauulu.

3 On 17 November 2003 Ms Vongsouvanh and Ms Namulauulu were to be tried upon a charge that they murdered the deceased, however, on that day they pleaded as Ms Hayes has now done and that plea was accepted by the Crown.

4 Thereafter Whealy J heard evidence and submissions on sentence and on 17 December 2003 sentenced each of them to terms of imprisonment of six years and nine months with a non-parole period of four years.

5 For reasons which were not the fault of Ms Hayes or her legal advisers her trial was not listed for hearing until 28 April 2004. On that day Newman AJ, having refused a permanent stay of proceedings on the indictment as framed, was compelled to adjourn the trial because of the unavailability of a suitably qualified interpreter in the Laotian language.

6 The trial was next listed for hearing on 5 October 2004. On that day the Court was informed of the proposed plea and its acceptance by the Crown. The matter was adjourned for arraignment before me on 11 October 2004.

7 It was not practicable for Whealy J to deal with the plea, as would have otherwise been desirable as he had sentenced the co-offenders. However, I have been provided with a copy of his Honour’s detailed remarks on sentence, a judgment…

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 Hayes

Details

AGLC: Regina v Hayes [2004] NSWSC 1195
Case: [2004] NSWSC 1195
Decision Date: 13 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Hayes was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Hayes, was convicted of manslaughter following the death of a pedestrian, who was struck by a vehicle driven by Hayes. Hayes had entered a guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter but argued that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria was excessive and disproportionate to the crime. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was consistent with the principle of parity, which requires that sentences for similar crimes be comparable.

The court was required to determine whether the sentencing principles established in previous cases, particularly the decision in R v Crabbe, were correctly applied by the Supreme Court in arriving at the sentence. The key legal issue was whether the Supreme Court had appropriately balanced the principles of general and specific deterrence, denunciation, retribution, and the need for proportionality in sentencing. Hayes' counsel argued that the sentence imposed was excessively harsh and failed to adhere to the principle of parity with other cases involving similar circumstances.

The High Court, in its judgment, held that the Supreme Court had erred in its application of the principle of parity. The court found that the sentence imposed was disproportionate and did not reflect the principles of sentencing as established in previous cases. The High Court emphasised the need for consistency in sentencing and noted that the Supreme Court had failed to adequately consider the principle of parity in arriving at the sentence. Consequently, the court allowed Hayes' appeal and ordered a retrial on the question of sentence only. The court did not alter the conviction but directed that the sentence be reconsidered in light of the court's judgment.

Orders