Regina v Hull

Case [2006] NSWDC 177
CITATION: Regina v Hull [2006] NSWDC 177
HEARING DATE(S): 31/03/06
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
7 April 2006
JURISDICTION: Criminal
JUDGMENT OF: Norrish QC DCJ
DECISION: See para 142 and 143
CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - mentally ill offender - malicious wound with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.
LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
CASES CITED: Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Geddes v The Queen (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
Regina v Letteri (unrep, 18/03/92, NSW CCA)
The Queen v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
The Queen v Engert (1995) 84 ACR 67
Wright v The Queen (1997) 93 ACR 48
Regina v Fhada [1999] NSWCCA 264
The Queen v Lee [2003] NSWCCA 391
Regina v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
Regina v Hopkins [2004] NSWCCA 105
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 57
Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270
Veen (No2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 65
Regina v Markarian[2005] NSWCCA 264
PARTIES: Regina
Nathan Hull
FILE NUMBER(S): 05/71/0042
COUNSEL: Mr Corr
Mr Young
SOLICITORS: DPP (Wagga Wagga)
Sheekey Williams

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: If you do not mind standing just for a moment, Mr Hull, and then I will ask you to sit and then I will give my reasons, but my practice is to tell people in advance what sentence I propose to impose.

2 In relation to each of the matters to which you have pleaded guilty you will be convicted. In respect of the charge alleging malicious wounding of Garry James Lyons, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment, I propose to sentence you to three years imprisonment to date from 28 November 2004 and to expire on 27 November 2007. That sentence recognises a discount of 25 per cent as required in accordance with the guideline judgment of Thomson & Houlton of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

3 In respect of the third charge on the indictment, that is the wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm of Jason David Schurr, I propose to sentence you to a total of six years imprisonment. That term of imprisonment recognises a discount of 25 per cent, but it will comprise of a non-parole period of two years to date from 28 November 2005 and to expire on 27 November 2007. It will have a balance of sentence of four years.

4 Therefore, the total sentence you will be subject to will be seven years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. So you can take a seat and I will give my reasons for that decision.

5 In the Foreword to the First edition of the Sentencing Manual, issued by the Judicial Commission to all judges and magistrates, the learned Chief Justice said:


      “No task performed by the judiciary is of greater social significance than the task of sentencing persons who have committed criminal offences. Individual judicial officers call upon a vast body…

Continue reading Regina v Hull

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Regina v Hull [2006] NSWDC 177
Case
[2006] NSWDC 177
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Hull was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Hull, faced charges related to a serious criminal offence. Hull was charged with malicious wounding with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, and the case involved the sentencing of the defendant, who had been found to be mentally ill. The primary focus of the court's consideration was the appropriate sentence for Hull, given his mental health status and the severity of the crime committed.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included the determination of an appropriate sentence for an offender who was mentally ill at the time of committing the offence, and the extent to which Hull's mental illness should mitigate the sentence. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the need for rehabilitation and treatment of the offender's mental health condition. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of justice and proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence while also taking into account Hull's mental health status.

In reaching its decision, the court considered various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, Hull's mental health history, and the recommendations of expert psychiatric evidence. The court emphasised the importance of treating mentally ill offenders with appropriate care and rehabilitation, rather than simply imposing punitive measures. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary, but it was to be accompanied by a comprehensive treatment and rehabilitation plan. The court recognised the need to balance the rights of the victim, the safety of the community, and the welfare of the offender in its sentencing decision.

The court ordered that Hull be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific conditions attached to ensure that his mental health needs were addressed during his incarceration. The sentence also included provisions for ongoing psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation programs. The orders specified the length of the sentence and the conditions under which it was to be served, reflecting the court's consideration of both the need for punishment and the necessity of addressing Hull's mental health issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

See para 142 and 143

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.