By -

Criminal defence lawyer and a Director and Principal at J Sutton Associates, Andrew Tiedt, recently hosted a webinar for the Law Society of New South Wales, taking a broad look at some of the noteworthy criminal cases in Australia over the past year.

Among the matters raised by Tiedt was an appeal against the sentence handed to Timothy Hodson, who was found guilty of 12 child sex offences (R v Hodson [2024] NSWCCA 238). The Crown argued the penalty of nine years and nine months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years and six months, was manifestly inadequate. The offences occurred over a 15 year period and involved four victims between the age of four and 12 at the time.

Evidence accepted when he was originally sentenced, stated that Hodson was sexually assaulted multiple times while in custody on remand, prior to being granted bail. He also suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of his experience in prison.

Justice Hament Dhanji criticised the State for failing to protect the respondent in incarceration. “[O]ffenders are sentenced to imprisonment as punishment, not for punishment.” This was not, he observes, a question of sympathy for the respondent. “Offenders are sentenced because we as a society insist on adherence to our laws. The same insistence does not stop at the prison gates.”

But the court nonetheless ruled in favour of the Crown and increased the sentence to 12 years, with a non-parole period of eight years and six month. Justice Dhanji wrote “there is no formula for discounting [sentences] on the basis of the State’s failure to protect the offender or the harm suffered by an offender in custody,”

This is among 20 cases concisely described and analysed by Tiedt, giving criminal lawyers important information for handling their own matters.

“[R v Hodson] is a useful case to mark down if you have clients who are suffering or have been victims of offending in prison,” says Tiedt. He adds that although the court agreed that the sentence should be increased, it also criticised the State’s failure to provide adequate and safe prison conditions. ” [There] has been a case where the Court of Criminal Appeal has spoken out against that sort of thing happening very strongly. And of course, we can only hope that whatever issues are allowing that to occur are being promptly addressed.”

Several cases presented by Tiedt relate to appeals and explain how court rulings can be applied in future proceedings.

Cases like Symons v R and McDonald v R, an appeal following the sentence of seven men for the violent assault and murder of another man. Following the successful appeal by Robertson, Symons and McDonald also appealed even though it was past the time allowed to do so.

The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed their cases were “relevantly identically” to Robertson’s and ordered two new trials. “An appeal is materially indistinguishable from an earlier appeal from the same trial, raising the same point, the court should follow the earlier decision, and this has a compelling reason to depart from it,” says the judgment.

In each case, Tiedt sets out why the decision is worth looking at. In one case, a “Black direction”—when the judge directs the jury to keep deliberating if a verdict has not been reached —led to a retrial.
Tiedt also discusses a case where a defendant was convicted at trial and then died in custody, but when the complainant sued his estate, the claim was dismissed as the court was not persuaded that the assault occurred.

You can watch Andrew Tiedt’s session on lawinform.com.au under the name “criminal case law, the year in review—on-demand recording.”