Regina v Hughes - [2000] NSWCCA 366

CITATION: Regina v Hughes [2000] NSWCCA 366

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60510/98

HEARING DATE(S): 08/09/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 September 2000

PARTIES :

Glenn Ronald Hughes (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Fitzgerald JA at 1; Newman J at 18; Greg James J at 19

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/41/0305

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : J B Phelan DCJ

COUNSEL : Glenn Ronald Hughes (In Person) (Appellant)
W G Dawe QC (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Glenn Ronald Hughes (In Person) (Appellant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - parity principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
R v Christie [2000] NSWCCA 354.

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed insofar as it relates to the sentence imposed upon the applicant for the offence of robbery in company. Sentence imposed for offence of robbery in company and a sentence of imprisonment for 4 years 6 months to date from 19 April 1998 with a non-parole period of 3 years imprisonment imposed for that offence

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60510/98
DC 97/41/0305

FITZGERALD JA
NEWMAN J
GREG JAMES J
FRIDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 2000

REGINA v HUGHES
JUDGMENT

1 FITZGERALD JA: Glenn Ronald Hughes has applied for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court at Wollongong on 3 September 1998. Hughes pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in company contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, one count of stealing a motor vehicle contrary to s 154AA of the Crimes Act and one count of maliciously damaging the stolen motor vehicle by fire contrary to s 195(b) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for the offence of robbery in company is 20 years imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for each of the other offences is 10 years imprisonment. 2 For the offence of robbery in company, Hughes was sentenced to a minimum term of 4 years imprisonment to date from 19 April 1998 and to expire on 18 April 2002 with an additional term of 2 years imprisonment to expire on 18 April 2004. For each of the other offences, he was sentenced to a fixed term of 15 months imprisonment to date from 3 September 1998 to be served concurrently with each other and with the sentence imposed in relation to the offence of robbery in company. The sentencing judge found that special circumstances existed “in the need for him to have close supervision on his release from imprisonment over an extended period”. 3 Hughes’ application for leave to appeal relates to his sentence for the offence of robbery in company. He does not dispute that the sentence which he received “was in itself within the scope of the court’s discretion in relation to the seriousness of the offence and the attendant considerations of [his] previous criminal record and likelihood of rehabilitation”. His argument that his sentence is manifestly excessive is based solely upon an asserted disparity between…

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 [2000] NSWCCA 366
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 366
Decision Date: 8 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Hughes was a case heard by the High Court of Australia. The defendant, Hughes, was convicted of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal to the High Court was concerned with the issue of parity in sentencing between life imprisonment and the death penalty. The Court was asked to determine whether the sentencing of Hughes to life imprisonment was inconsistent with the principle of parity, which requires that the penalty for murder should not be so disproportionate as to be unfair.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the principle of parity required the Court to impose the death penalty in cases of murder, and if not, what criteria should be used to determine if a sentence of life imprisonment was proportionate and thus consistent with the principle of parity. The Court considered the historical context of the death penalty in Australia, the contemporary understanding of the principle of parity, and the circumstances of the crime and the offender.

The Court held that the principle of parity did not require the imposition of the death penalty in all cases of murder. Instead, the principle was satisfied if the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crime. In assessing proportionality, the Court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the character of the offender, and the deterrent and rehabilitative purposes of sentencing. The Court concluded that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on Hughes was proportionate and therefore consistent with the principle of parity.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment for Hughes. The Court emphasised that while the death penalty could be appropriate in some cases of murder, life imprisonment remained a proportionate and valid penalty for murder, provided it was appropriate to the circumstances of the case. The decision underscored the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for individualised assessments of each case.

Orders