Regina v Robert John Hill - [2003] NSWCCA 128

CITATION: Regina v Robert John Hill [2003] NSWCCA 128

HEARING DATE(S): 8 April 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Levine J at 55; Buddin J at 56

DECISION: Leave granted to appeal against all four sentences passed in the Court below; Appeals against sentences thus passed for the two offences of murder be allowed and those sentences quashed; In lieu the applicant sentenced (a) for the murder of Mr. Watson, to imprisonment for 30 years to commence on 24 February 1999 and expire on 23 February 2029, with a non-parole period of 25 years to commence on 24 February 1999 and expire on 23 February 3024, and (b) for the murder of Mr. O'Shea, to imprisonment for 25 years to commence on 24 February 1999 and expire on 23 February 2024, with a non-prole period of 23 years to commence on 24 February 1999 and expire on 22 February 2022.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)

CASES CITED: The Queen v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610
Reg v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
Reg v Twala, unreported, 4 November 1994
Reg v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704

PARTIES :
Regina
Robert John Hill

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60188/2000

COUNSEL: L. Lamprati - Crown
T. Game SC/G. Bashir - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
D. J. Humphreys - Appellant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70033/99

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : O'Keefe J

60188/2000

SULLY J
LEVINE J
BUDDIN J
Thursday 8 May 2002

REGINA v ROBERT JOHN HILL

Judgment

1 SULLY J:

Introduction

On 8 December 1999 the applicant, Mr. Hill, pleaded guilty upon arraignment to:

1. The murder of one Bradley Watson

2. The murder of one Lawrence O’Shea

3. The malicious discharge of a firearm with intent to do grievous bodily harm to one Michael Rasic

2 Each offence of murder attracted upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. Each offence of malicious discharge of a firearm with intent, attracted upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years.

3 Proceedings on sentence took place on 20, 21, 22 and 23 March 2000. The presiding Judge was O’Keefe J. The applicant was represented throughout by counsel, not being counsel who appeared for him at the hearing of the present application.

4 The applicant stood for sentence on 27 March 2000. He was sentenced as follows:

[1] For the murder of Mr. Watson: to a minimum term of penal servitude for 30 years and an additional term of penal servitude for life.

[2] For the murder of Mr. O’Shea: to a minimum term of penal servitude for 25 years and an additional term of penal servitude for life.

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 Robert John Hill

Details

AGLC: Regina v Robert John Hill [2003] NSWCCA 128
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 128
Decision Date: 8 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Robert John Hill involved an appeal against the sentences imposed on the applicant, Robert John Hill, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of murder and two counts of malicious discharge of a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were appropriate and in accordance with the law. The court found that the trial judge had erred in the way he structured the sentences for the two counts of murder, which led to the need for the court to re-sentence the applicant. The court considered various factors, including the objective criminality of the offences, the applicant's subjective features, and the need for proportionality and denunciation. The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal against the sentences for the two counts of murder, quashed those sentences, and imposed new sentences of imprisonment for 30 years with a non-parole period of 25 years for the murder of one victim, and imprisonment for 25 years with a non-parole period of 23 years for the murder of the other victim. The sentences for the two counts of malicious discharge of a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm were upheld.

Orders