Newton Hearings

Occasionally a defendant admits they have committed an offence, but on a different basis to the facts put by the prosecution.

A Newton hearing is needed to determine the facts if the defence and prosecution version of events are at odds with each other and the sentence imposed would be materially different if the court accepted one version of events in favour of the other.

If the court decides to sentence without a Newton hearing, then it is obliged to take into account only the defence version of events.

The need for a Newton hearing is perhaps best illustrated by reference to an example.

Suppose a defendant has admitted a charge of common assault, but denies the prosecution version of events.

The prosecution version:

The victim in the case was stood talking to a man outside a city centre bar popular with gay people. He was repeatedly punched about the head and upper body in an attack lasting around one minute. The assault happened at 7 pm, so there were several members of the public passing nearby. The defendant, who has a previous conviction for a homophobic assault from a year earlier, deliberately targeted the victim on the basis of his presumed sexual orientation. It was an unprovoked assault and the victim sustained a black eye and bruising to his chest as a result. The victim had popped outside the bar to have a cigarette on the pavement and was passing the time of day with another smoker.

The defence version:

The defendant, who is not local to the area of the offence, just happened to be passing the bar when he heard the victim shout something in his direction and stick his fingers up. The defendant, who was in a poor frame of mind having received bad news earlier that day, saw red and lashed out at the victim. He admits hitting the victim around the head and upper body, but denies it lasted for more than a few seconds. He claims to have landed only a couple of blows, but accepts the injuries the victim sustained as a result of the assault. As he was not local to the area, the defendant claims he had no idea the offence took place outside an establishment popular with gay people. That being the case, he had no idea that the victim might be gay.

Sentencing:

Referring to the Sentencing Guidelines, it would appear that prosecution version of events would suggest a category 1 offence (greater harm, higher culpability).

Arguably the offence is one of greater harm because the bench might consider one minute, in the context of the offence, to be quite a sustained period of time when punches are raining down on the victim. The offence is one of higher culpability if the bench accepts the prosecution claim that it was motivated by the victim's presumed sexual orientation.

The defence version of events would suggest a category 2 offence at most (greater harm, lower culpability).

The bench might still be inclined to consider the offence a repeated assault, given the defendant's admission that he landed more than one blow on the victim. If the bench accepts the defence account that it was a chance encounter, with some provocation, no premeditation and no homophobic element then it would likely consider it a lower culpability offence.

If the bench sentences on the basis of a category 1 offence then all options, up to including custody, are available to it. If it sentences on the basis of a category 2 offence then it is likely to fall within the community band.

Such a material difference in sentencing outcomes would suggest the need for a Newton hearing to determine which of the differing accounts should be considered for sentencing.