AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 19 September 2013

R v Robert Martin HICKS

[2013] NSWSC 1324

HomicideDrugsDomestic & family violence
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE MURDER GUILTY PLEA ENTERED AT A LATER STAGE

Citation: R v Robert Martin Hicks [2013] NSWSC 1324
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 19 September 2013
Judge: Adams J

Background

The offender was in a relationship with the victim, Patricia Newman, and both lived in separate units of the same building in Lalor Park. On 10 August 2011, following a morning during which both had injected methamphetamine, an argument erupted in the offender's unit over the drugs. The offender picked up a large serrated knife, and the victim sustained a fatal stab wound to the left side of the base of her neck, severing the left subclavian artery. She was declared dead at the scene at 11.47am.

The offender was arrested at the scene. He was visibly distressed, attempted mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, and assisted a neighbour to perform CPR while screaming for help. His accounts to police at the scene and in a subsequent recorded interview were generally consistent: he claimed he had blacked out while holding the knife and that the victim had lunged toward him.

The offender initially pleaded not guilty in November 2012. A trial date was fixed for 20 May 2013. His solicitor notified the Crown on 15 April 2013 that he would plead guilty to murder, and he entered that plea on re-arraignment on 3 May 2013, adhering to it at the sentencing hearing in August 2013.

  • Whether the offender intended to kill the victim or only to cause grievous bodily harm
  • The objective seriousness of the offence and where it sat within the range of culpability for murder
  • What discount was appropriate for the guilty plea, given it was entered approximately six weeks before the scheduled trial date
  • Whether the offender's immediate post-offence conduct and other personal circumstances warranted leniency
  • Whether special circumstances justified a variation to the standard non-parole period ratio under s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Decision

Intent and objective seriousness: Adams J found that the offender did not intend to kill the victim but did intend to cause her grievous bodily harm. The court placed the offence toward the lower end of culpability for murder. The killing arose at the spur of the moment from a single, momentary act of extreme angry violence, with no premeditation and no ulterior motive. While the use of a weapon and the grave risk of death were present, the court treated those as factors inherent in the offence itself.

Plea discount: The guilty plea was entered approximately six weeks before trial, after a not-guilty plea had been maintained for several months following committal. Adams J assessed this as warranting a discount of 15 per cent, reflecting the lateness of the plea relative to the maximum available discount.

Remorse and personal circumstances: The court accepted that the offender's conduct immediately after the offence, including his frantic efforts to obtain help and perform resuscitation, demonstrated genuine remorse. The offender's drug use was a significant background factor but did not operate as a mitigating circumstance in itself. His prospects of rehabilitation were described as reasonable.

Non-parole period: The court found no special circumstances that would justify departing from the standard non-parole period ratio under s 44. The sentence of 17 years imprisonment (after the 15 per cent plea discount) carried a non-parole period of 12 years and 9 months.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment for murder
  • The sentence commenced on 10 August 2011 (the date of the offence)
  • The non-parole period was set at 12 years and 9 months
  • The earliest eligible parole date was 10 May 2024
  • The court noted the offender was subject to the Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006, under which an extended supervision order or continuing detention order could be sought if he were found to be a high-risk violent offender

Key Takeaways

  • Where a murder arises from a spontaneous act of extreme angry violence with no premeditation and no intent to kill (but only to cause grievous bodily harm), the Supreme Court may place the offence toward the lower end of the range of culpability for murder.
  • A guilty plea entered approximately six weeks before a scheduled trial, after a not-guilty plea had been maintained for some months, attracted a discount of only 15 per cent rather than the maximum available.
  • Genuine remorse can be demonstrated by conduct immediately following the offence, not only by later expressions of contrition. The offender's attempts to obtain help and perform CPR were treated as evidence of authentic remorse.
  • Under s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a variation to the standard non-parole period ratio requires a finding of special circumstances. The court found none here, and the non-parole period was set at the statutory proportion.
  • Sentencing for murder engages the Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006, which operates independently of the sentence itself and may result in further supervision or detention if a later assessment finds the offender to be a high-risk violent offender.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19A(1) (murder, maximum penalty of life imprisonment)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), Table in Div 1A of Pt 4 (standard non-parole period of 20 years for murder); s 21A(2) (aggravating factors); s 44 (non-parole period ratio)
- Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases cited: No cases were cited in the portions of the judgment provided.