Regina v Nicholas Hampton - [2004] NSWSC 1215

CITATION: Regina v Nicholas Hampton [2004] NSWSC 1215

HEARING DATE(S): 13/12/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 December 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

DECISION: For the offence of entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a serious indictable offence in circumstances of aggravation the offender is sentenced to a term of two years' and eight months' imprisonment to date from from 2 December 2002. That sentence will expire on 1 August 2005. In light of the sentence next imposed, no non-parole period is specified; For the manslaughter of Steven Klor the offender is sentenced to a term of six years' and four months' imprisonment. That sentence will commence on 2 December 2003 and will expire on 1 April 2010. Specify a non-parole period of three years and four months commencing on 2 December 2003. The first date on which the offender will be eligible for release on parole is 1 April 2007.

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

CASES CITED: R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76

PARTIES :
Regina
Nicholas Hampton (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2003/161

COUNSEL: G. Tabuteau (Crown)
J. Stratton SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh
SE O'Connor (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BELL J

Friday 17 December 2004

2003/161 Regina v Nicholas Hampton
JUDGMENT

1 BELL J: The offender pleaded guilty to an indictment that charged him in count one with the manslaughter of Steven Klor at Blackett on 1 November 2002 and in count two with entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, namely, to assault David Crowden and thereby to occasion to him actual bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation, namely that the offender was in the company of other persons, to wit AH and an unknown male.

2 The offender had been arraigned on 25 October 2004 before Davidson AJ on an indictment that charged him with the murder of Steven Klor and with the offence of entering a dwelling with intent to commit a serious indictable offence. He entered pleas of not guilty to each of the counts. A jury was empanelled and the offender stood trial. The jury were discharged without verdict and thereafter the offender was re-arraigned on the present indictment to which he entered pleas of guilty to each count. The offender had not previously indicated to the Crown that he was willing to plead guilty the manslaughter of the deceased.

3 The facts upon which I am to sentence the offender are those set out in the agreed statement of facts, Exhibit “A”. I propose to set the terms of that statement out in full:

Count 1 manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act.

On Friday 1st November 2002, at about 5:00 pm the accused, Nicholas Hampton, along with AH and a third unidentified male, went to the front door of [premises in] Popondetta Road, Blackett. These premises were a town housing complex, and were occupied by the deceased,…

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 Nicholas Hampton

Details

AGLC: Regina v Nicholas Hampton [2004] NSWSC 1215
Case: [2004] NSWSC 1215
Decision Date: 17 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Nicholas Hampton, the offender pleaded guilty to two charges: manslaughter of Steven Klor and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, namely assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court was required to decide on an appropriate sentence for each offence, considering the nature and circumstances of the crimes, the offender's background, and other relevant factors.

The court considered the circumstances of the offences, which involved the offender entering the victim's home with the intent to obtain drugs, resulting in a violent confrontation that led to the victim's death. The court also took into account the offender's background, including his young age, limited education, and history of substance abuse. The offender's guilty plea and expressed remorse were considered as mitigating factors. The court applied the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the relevant case law.

The court sentenced the offender to two years and eight months' imprisonment for the offence of entering a dwelling with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, to run concurrently with a sentence of six years and four months for the manslaughter of Steven Klor. The court specified a non-parole period of three years and four months for the manslaughter charge, commencing on 2 December 2003. The offender will be eligible for parole on 1 April 2007.

The court's reasoning was based on the principles of proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court considered the offender's age, background, and potential for rehabilitation, along with the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community. The court also took into account the Victim Impact Statement, which highlighted the devastating impact of the offender's actions on the victim's family.

In summary, the court imposed concurrent sentences for the two offences, taking into account the offender's background and the need for rehabilitation, while also ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the community.

Orders