Hazell v R [2015] NSWCCA 26

Hazell v R [2015] NSWCCA 26

The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge was aware of and took into account the applicant's significant mental health and intellectual issues, substance and alcohol abuse, and the connection between those matters and the offending. The seriousness of the sustained violent offending, the use of a knife, the applicant's prior violent offending and parole status justified a significant custodial sentence, and the sentences were not unreasonable or plainly unjust. The third ground had no independent utility because resentencing was not required.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manifest Excess' 'mental Health and Intellectual Disability in Sentencing' 'substance and Alcohol Abuse' 'domestic Violence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'concurrent Sentences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manifest Excess' 'mental Health and Intellectual Disability in Sentencing' 'substance and Alcohol Abuse' 'domestic Violence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'concurrent Sentences']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to take into account the causal link between the applicant's mental health issues and the commission of the offences." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to take into account the more onerous conditions of custody faced by the applicant.' 'Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in declining to set a non-parole period for the reckless wounding count, an offence carrying a standard non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge was aware of and took into account the applicant's significant mental health and intellectual issues, substance and alcohol abuse, and the connection between those matters and the offending. The seriousness of the sustained violent offending, the use of a knife, the applicant's prior violent offending and parole status justified a significant custodial sentence, and the sentences were not unreasonable or plainly unjust. The third ground had no independent utility because resentencing was not required.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']