Hiron v R [2007] NSWCCA 336

Hiron v R [2007] NSWCCA 336

The sentences for counts 3a and 4a involved error because the stated 20 per cent utilitarian discount produced an undiscounted starting point above the five-year statutory maximum for offences under s 59(1) Crimes Act 1900. However, the sentencing judge otherwise had regard to totality, the serious repeated domestic...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; sentences for counts 3a and 4a quashed and replaced; total effective sentence and earliest parole eligibility date remained unaltered.
Legal Topics
['assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'false Imprisonment' 'resisting Police' 'domestic Violence' 'utilitarian Discount for Guilty Plea' 'principle of Totality' 'manifest Excessiveness']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'false Imprisonment' 'resisting Police' 'domestic Violence' 'utilitarian Discount for Guilty Plea' 'principle of Totality' 'manifest Excessiveness']

Source-derived case record

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying a 20 per cent utilitarian discount to sentences for counts 3a and 4a where the resulting undiscounted starting point exceeded the statutory maximum for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to have proper regard to the principle in Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 and the principle of totality.' 'Whether the total effective sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences for counts 3a and 4a involved error because the stated 20 per cent utilitarian discount produced an undiscounted starting point above the five-year statutory maximum for offences under s 59(1) Crimes Act 1900. However, the sentencing judge otherwise had regard to totality, the serious repeated domestic violence, the applicant's offending while on parole, and the need for deterrence; the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive and no lesser overall sentence was warranted under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; sentences for counts 3a and 4a quashed and replaced; total effective sentence and earliest parole eligibility date remained unaltered.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted.' 'Quash the sentence imposed by Viney ADCJ for count 3a being an offence contrary to s 59(1) Crimes Act 1900.' 'Sentence the applicant on count 3a to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months commencing on 22 January 2008 and expiring on 21 October 2009 and a balance...