Offender, 14 or 15 years of age, and the victim, 8 or 9 years of age, are stepbrothers — all counts involved fellatio — Juvenile Justice Background Reports indicate offender has no pre-existing psychological injuries and enjoyed a good upbringing, but struggled emotionally due to having lost friends to suicide and had a self-reported addiction to pornography — offender’s compulsive pattern of pornography use exacerbated mental health difficulties and contributed to offending behaviour — offender has undertaken and completed an active course of treatment and is placed within low range for violent reoffending — age of offender at time of offending and efforts at rehabilitation weighed against objective seriousness of offending — offender released on Community Correction Order.

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 ss 14, 15 — Appeal against sentence — applicant found guilty of aggravated break, enter and committing serious indictable offence, robbery in company — sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years — court erred in admitting evidence regarding applicant’s Children’s Court criminal history — Bugmy principles applied — youth and history of dysfunction — appeal allowed — applicant re-sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months.

Severity appeal — applicant found guilty under ss 66A and 91H(2) Crimes Act 1900 of producing child abuse material and sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years — sentence of 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, with non-parole period of four years imposed — applicant 16 years of age when offences occurred — applicant diagnosed with Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder, expressive and receptive language, sensorimotor difficulties, and attention/executive function deficits — psychology reports show no or very little risk of similar re-offending — offender re-sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months.

Severity appeal — the applicant was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months for sexual assault on a minor — applicant has a learning disorder and ADHD — applicant aged 13 years at time of offending — sentencing judge did not take applicant’s age and causative mental condition into account in assessing objective seriousness — offending was at or near the bottom of the range of objective seriousness for offences of this kind — re-sentenced to aggregate sentence of 1 year and 6 months with an aggregate non-parole period of 9 months.

Severity appeal — applicant threw an explosive with intent to burn — applicant sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years, 6 months, with a non-parole period of 6 years — applicant’s youth and immaturity, genuine remorse and gathering insight were not reflected in sentence — applicant re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years, 9 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and a balance of term of 2 years, 9 months.

Severity appeal — applicant sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years, 9 months with non-parole period of 2 years for specially aggravated break and enter and committing a serious indictable offence — 78-year-old woman severely beaten with bricks and a piece of wood — applicant aged 12 years 10 months — sentence manifestly excessive — judge gave insufficient weight to applicant’s youth, immaturity, impulsivity and deprived background — appeal granted — applicant re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a non-parole period of 1 year, 4 months with a balance of term of 1 year, 8 months.

Sentencing — offender pleaded guilty to three separate sexual offences against children — Count 1 and Form 1 offences occurred when offender aged 15 years — Count 2 offence occurred when offender 26 years of age — offender has mild intellectual disability, ADHD, sexually abused by uncle when younger — criminality in count 1 is above mid-range due to young age of victim — offender is entitled to substantial mitigation for count 1 and Form 1 matters as they would have been dealt with in Children’s Court had they been reported closer to time of offending — unable to conclude that count 1 matter crosses the threshold of s 5 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 — Community Corrections Order for 3 years for count 1 — 3 years, 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year. 9 months for count 2.

Flanagan was 18 years and 10 months at time of offending — Brennan was 17 years and 10 months — aggravated break and enter — aggravated take and drive vehicle — knife used on one victim — both offenders on parole at time of offending — offenders’ youth, immaturity, deprived background, long history of offending, drug use, intellectual disability taken into account on sentencing — parity of sentence as equally liable for offences — Flanagan’s two sentences to be served concurrently — aggregate sentence 3 years and 9 months, non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months — Brennan’s sentence of 3 years and 4 months, non-parole period 1 year 8 months

Aboriginal offender — sentence appeal — applicant aged 19 at time of offence — found guilty after trial of one count of attempted robbery armed with a dangerous weapon — ss 97(2) and 344A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) — sentencing judge had no regard to applicant’s social disadvantage when exercising sentencing discretion — applicant’s disadvantaged background was a factor the judge ought to have considered: at [35]; Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 — error in failing to take into account a material consideration; House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 — supportive family background taken into account — applicant’s exposure to crime at an early age among members of his wider family and peers — interplay of conflicting sentencing considerations — independent re-exercise of the sentencing discretion — mitigating factors — age of applicant — exposure to criminal activity during his formative years — potentially crushing nature of a sentence which the applicant is already serving — other factors taken into account: lack of remorse, lengthy criminal history and poor compliance with supervision — sentence reduced.

Sentence appeal — wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm — s 33(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) — no error in finding that offence was within the midrange of objective seriousness — applicant’s subjective case including abusive upbringing properly taken into account — sentence not manifestly excessive — adult applicant with poor criminal record including a conviction as a juvenile and a history of drug use from the age of 10-years-old — psychologist’s report that applicant was subjected to ritual and constant physical, sexual and psychological abuse — leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.

Sentencing appeal — youth identifies as Aboriginal — intellectual and emotional deficits — Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder — multiple property offences — break, enter and steal — break and enter with intent — aggravated break, enter and steal — some offences committed while on parole and another while on conditional liberty — disconnection from Juvenile Justice — need for supervision identified — two-year control order reduced to 1 year and 10 months — non-parole period of 14 months reduced to 12 months — two-year good behaviour bond ordered — condition of bond that the youth accept the supervision of Juvenile Justice and the supervision of any other organisation or person directed by Juvenile Justice.

Manslaughter of the offender’s newborn son — offender aged under 16 years — highly dysfunctional childhood — sentence of 10 years’ detention — appeal — new evidence that offender suffered from foetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) — relevance of FASD to sentencing — whether a material mitigating factor — offender re-sentenced to a term of 7 years’ detention.

Severity appeal — s 61I Crimes Act 1900 — sexual intercourse without consent — applicant a week short of his 17th birthday at the time of the offence — judge erred by using standard non-parole period as a guide — relevance of the applicant’s youth — emotional maturity and impulse control may not be fully developed until the early to mid-twenties — application of R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 — whether appropriate to give effect to the applicant’s deprived background.