Regina v S Hassen - [2002] NSWCCA 25

CITATION: Regina v S Hassen [2002] NSWCCA 25

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60227/01

HEARING DATE(S): 15/02/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina (Resp)
Steven Hassen (Appl)

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J at 1; Buddin J at 20

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0606

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Shadbolt DCJ

COUNSEL : P G Ingram (Crown - Resp)
Steven Hassen (In Person - Appl)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown - Resp)
N/A

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law & Procedure - Sentence - Appeal against severity - Special circumstances

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

CASES CITED:
Regina v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534
Regina v GDR (1994) 34 NSWLR 376
Regina v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted.; Appeal dismissed.

60227/01

Kirby J
Buddin J

15 February 2002

REGINA v Steven HASSEN

Judgment

1 KIRBY J: Mr Hassen stood trial before Shadbolt DCJ and a jury. He was charged with one count of an offence commonly referred to as break, enter and steal (s112(1) Crimes Act 1900). He was found guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years with a non parole period of three years. His Honour declined to make a finding of special circumstances.

2 Mr Hassen seeks leave to appeal against the severity of that sentence. On this appeal he has appeared for himself.

The Offence

3 The circumstances giving rise to the charge were unremarkable. The issue was one of identification. A house was broken into by removing a glass window at the rear. Property was stolen (two television sets, one video recorder, head phones, dolls and ear rings). An eye witness gave evidence for the Crown. He said he knew Mr Hassen. He recognised him, amongst other things, because of his “ginger hair”. He knew where he lived. He also knew his wife, a person described as being of Aboriginal descent.

4 The witness said he saw Mr Hassen walk across the backyard of the dwelling from which the property was stolen. He watched him pass a television set to his wife over the rear fence. The observations were made over a number of minutes, although Mr Hassen was not aware that he was being watched. It is unsurprising, in these circumstances, that Mr Hassen should have been convicted.

The Appeal

5 The complaints made by Mr Hassen on this appeal are set out in a letter addressed to the court. Fundamentally, they raise three issues:

· First, that his Honour failed to make a finding of remorse and take account of remorse;

· Secondly, that his Honour ought to have found special circumstances;

· Thirdly, that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

6 I will deal with each matter in turn.

The Finding of No Remorse

7 In his remarks on sentence his Honour said this:

“He has shown not the slightest contrition and none of the property has been returned”.

8 Mr Hassen pleaded not guilty. He did not give…

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 S Hassen

Details

AGLC: Regina v S Hassen [2002] NSWCCA 25
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 25
Decision Date: 15 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v S Hassen was heard by the High Court of Australia, where the appellant, S Hassen, appealed against the severity of his sentence. The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. The appeal focused on the court's consideration of special circumstances in the sentencing phase. The appellant argued that the sentencing court had failed to adequately consider certain mitigating factors that should have been given significant weight, thereby resulting in an unduly harsh sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing court had properly considered the special circumstances presented by the appellant and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court needed to determine whether the lower court had erred in its assessment of the mitigating factors and if those errors warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court also had to consider the principles of proportionality and the overarching aim of the criminal justice system in sentencing.

The High Court, in its judgement, held that the sentencing court had indeed failed to appropriately weigh the special circumstances presented by the appellant. The court found that the mitigating factors, which included the appellant's cooperation with law enforcement and his otherwise unblemished criminal history, were not given sufficient consideration. The High Court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive and ordered a reduction, while also providing detailed guidance on the appropriate weight that should have been assigned to the special circumstances. This decision underscored the importance of a thorough and balanced approach in sentencing, ensuring that all relevant factors are duly considered.

Orders