Michael Thomas HAWKINS v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 91

Michael Thomas HAWKINS v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 91

Although the sentencing judge erred in applying s21A(2)(m) to the committal offences, a lesser sentence was not warranted in law. The offences were serious, involved elderly and vulnerable victims, significant breaches of trust, invasion of homes, Form 1 matters involving substantial false-instrument offending, and a later aggravated break, enter and steal with actual bodily harm committed while on bail. The applicant's powerful subjective case, prospects of rehabilitation, guilty pleas and cooperation did not make the effective sentence of imprisonment for 9 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 7 years manifestly excessive or inconsistent with totality or special circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave granted; by majority, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Steal' 'stealing in a Dwelling' 'making and Using False Instruments' 'form 1 Matters' 'aggravating Factors' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'drug Addiction and Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Steal' 'stealing in a Dwelling' 'making and Using False Instruments' 'form 1 Matters' 'aggravating Factors' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'drug Addiction and Sentencing']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by treating the committal offences as aggravated under s21A(2)(m) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 because they involved multiple victims or a series of criminal acts.' 'Whether, despite that error, a lesser sentence was warranted in law under s6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether the effective non-parole period failed to give effect to the finding of special circumstances.' 'Whether the total effective sentence was manifestly excessive, including the accumulation of the sentence for the indictment offence upon the non-parole period for the fourth committal charge.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge erred in applying s21A(2)(m) to the committal offences, a lesser sentence was not warranted in law. The offences were serious, involved elderly and vulnerable victims, significant breaches of trust, invasion of homes, Form 1 matters involving substantial false-instrument offending, and a later aggravated break, enter and steal with actual bodily harm committed while on bail. The applicant's powerful subjective case, prospects of rehabilitation, guilty pleas and cooperation did not make the effective sentence of imprisonment for 9 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 7 years manifestly excessive or inconsistent with totality or special circumstances.

Court Disposition

Leave granted; by majority, appeal dismissed.

Orders

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