Regina v Hunt - [2002] NSWCCA 266

CITATION: Regina v Hunt [2002] NSWCCA 266

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60933/01

HEARING DATE(S): 25 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Robert Bruce Hunt

JUDGMENT OF: Smart AJ at 1,43,45; Blanch AJ at 44

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/41/0147

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Shillington DCJ

COUNSEL : (A) G Bashir
(C) W G Dawe QC

SOLICITORS: (A) Gregory J Goold
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - suspended sentence - breach of conditions - approach required under s.99 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedurre) Act 1999

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
R v Foster 2001 CCA 211

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted - Appeal allowed - Sentence imposed by Shillington DCJ quashed -In lieu the applicant is sentenced to twenty months imprisonment to commence on 16 November 2001 and to expire on 15 July 2003 with a non-parole period of ten months commencing on 16 November 2001 and expiring on 15 September 2002 on which date the applicant is to be released on supervised parole.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

SMART AJ

BLANCH AJ

Tuesday, 25 June 2002

REGINA v ROBERT BRUCE HUNT

JUDGMENT

1. SMART AJ: Robert Bruce Hunt seeks leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence passed upon him by Shillington DCJ on 6 December 2001 consequent upon proceedings taken for breach of a bond.

2. On 30 November 2000 Goldring DCJ sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for twenty months for on 16 January 2000 at Moruya inciting NSS, a person then under the age of sixteen, namely eleven years, to commit an act of indecency with him. The maximum penalty is two years imprisonment.

3. Goldring DCJ ordered that execution of the sentence be suspended for the term of the sentence and that the applicant be released from custody on condition that he entered into a good behaviour bond for the term of the sentence. The judge specified a number of conditions.

4. On 16 January 2000 the applicant had gone to the house of Ms Bennett, his former de facto, at her request to fix a toilet cistern. The applicant and Ms Bennett had lived together for some years and they had two young children. She was pregnant with a third child. NSS was the daughter of Ms Bennett and another man but she had lived with her mother and the applicant while they lived together.

5. When the applicant arrived at Ms Bennett’s house it was empty. Ms Bennett was away and the children were at their grandmother’s home. The applicant put on a pornographic video, took off his clothes and began to masturbate in the loungeroom. NSS arrived to vacuum the house as her mother was expected back shortly.

6. The applicant invited NSS to join him in masturbation, she refused. He offered her increased money which she also refused. She told him that she was waiting for him to go so that she…

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 Hunt

Details

AGLC: Regina v Hunt [2002] NSWCCA 266
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 266
Decision Date: 25 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Hunt, the defendant was sentenced by the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The defendant was convicted of an offence and subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a suspended sentence, subject to certain conditions. The defendant breached the conditions of the suspended sentence, leading to the current appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The court was required to determine the appropriate approach to sentencing in cases where a suspended sentence has been breached. The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider the principles outlined in section 99 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 when imposing the sentence. The court needed to determine if the sentence was appropriate and whether the sentencing judge applied the correct legal principles in making the decision.

The court held that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the principles outlined in section 99 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 when imposing the sentence. The court found that the judge did not provide sufficient reasons for the sentence, and that the sentence was excessive. The court also found that the judge did not adequately consider the defendant's personal circumstances and the impact of the sentence on the defendant's family. The court quashed the original sentence and remitted the matter to the lower court for resentencing.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the lower court for resentencing, with directions that the sentencing judge consider the principles outlined in section 99 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and provide adequate reasons for the sentence. The court also ordered that the sentencing judge consider the defendant's personal circumstances and the impact of the sentence on the defendant's family.

Orders