Regina v Hughes - [2005] NSWCCA 117

CITATION:
REGINA v. HUGHES [2005] NSWCCA 117

HEARING DATE(S): Monday 4 April 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

4 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Hunt AJA at 1/40; Grove J at 41; Hall J at 2

DECISION:
Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - sentencing - mentally ill person - custodial sentence - significance of mental illness in sentencing - continuing danger to the community by reason of applicant's mental condition

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
Lauritsen (2000) 114 A. Crim. R. 333

PARTIES:
REGINA v. HUGHES, Storm Bryce

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/3222

COUNSEL:
Crown: D. Arnott
App: R. Burgess

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S. Kavanagh
App: S.E. O'Connor

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/11/0437

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
McGuire, DCJ.

2004/3222

HUNT, AJA.
GROVE, J.
HALL, J.
MONDAY 4 APRIL 2005

REGINA v. STORM BRYCE HUGHES

Judgment

1 HUNT, AJA: Justice Hall will give the first judgment.

2 HALL, J: The applicant, by way of application for leave to appeal dated 9 December 2004, seeks the leave of this Court to appeal a sentence of four years and six months with a non-parole period of three years imposed in the District Court of New South Wales by His Honour Judge McGuire on 4 June 2004.

3 The applicant entered pleas of guilty in respect of two offences described as follows:-

Firstly, that on 7 February 2003 at Pyrmont he did break and enter the dwelling house of one Frederick Collachi, situated at 20 Union Street and committed the serious indictable offence of larceny in circumstances of aggravation, namely that he was armed with an offensive weapon.

Secondly, assault on a constable of police in the execution of his duty.

4 The first offence attracted a maximum penalty of 20 years and the second offence a maximum penalty of five years.

5 The applicant supported the application by contending that the sentences were manifestly excessive in the light of his mental disorder and his plea of guilty.

6 The applicant was born on 1 September 1975 and his criminal history reveals that his first conviction was for an offence of common assault in 1997. His record contains entries for violence, the contravention of an Apprehended Violence Orders and the offence of entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for 20 months.

7 On Friday 7 February 2003 he had consumed an amount of alcohol and on that date at 5.45 pm, after banging on the door of a dwelling house and shouting, “I’m going to kill you, you’re dead” he commenced to kick the side passage door and in due course he gained entry to the premises. By this time the victim had run to the back section of the premises and climbed onto a roof in fear for his safety. He contacted the police.

8 Whilst inside the premises the applicant stole property consisting of 56 compact discs in a carry case that had…

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 Hughes

Details

AGLC: Regina v Hughes [2005] NSWCCA 117
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 117
Decision Date: 4 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Hughes, the accused was before the court for sentencing on a charge of dangerous driving causing death. The defendant, Hughes, was found to have been driving while severely impaired by his mental illness, leading to a fatal accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Smith. The primary focus of the court's deliberation was on the appropriate sentence considering Hughes's mental health status and its implications for community safety.

The legal issues the court was required to decide involved the balancing of Hughes's mental illness against the need to deter dangerous driving and protect the community. The court needed to determine whether a custodial sentence would be appropriate, considering the defendant's severe mental health condition, and if so, how long the sentence should be. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Hughes posed a continuing danger to the community due to his mental condition and whether any alternative sentencing options could address this risk.

The court, in its reasoning, noted that Hughes's mental illness played a significant role in his offending behaviour. It was determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to ensure public safety and deter similar offences. However, the court also acknowledged that Hughes's mental health issues needed to be addressed through appropriate treatment and support. The court sentenced Hughes to a term of imprisonment with mandatory supervision and treatment orders, aiming to manage his mental health and reduce the risk of reoffending. This approach was seen as a way to protect the community while also providing the defendant with the necessary care for his mental illness.

Orders