Severity appeal — reckless wounding in company — Children’s Court — young person — whether control order ought be suspended — re-sentence — whether lesser sentence is warranted — re-sentence not less than the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge — appeal dismissed.

Applicant 19 years and 10 months when committed offences, at the time of sentencing applicant was 42 years old — pleaded guilty to specially aggravated break, enter and commit a felony, stealing property in dwelling house and two counts of aggravated sexual assault in company — sentenced to 16 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years imprisonment — applicant’s youth was appreciated by the sentencing judge but that such factors were to be given “much less weight” in light of the applicant’s behaviour which involved “extreme violence” — emphasis on need to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation has little part to play because sentencing was dealt with so many years after its commission — sentence not manifestly unreasonable — appeal dismissed.

Severity appeal — appellant 16 ½ years of age when she committed a series of serious crimes for which she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment — at first instance, the principles in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 were considered due to exposure to risks of psychological harm, physical abuse, sexual acts of exploitation, serious self-harming, risk taking behaviour and significant neglect as a child — mental condition considered — Appellant contended sentencing judge failed to make findings as to her reduced moral culpability — sentencing judge substantively addressed the relevant factors and there is no essential requirement to expressly use the phrase “moral culpability” — appeal dismissed.

Appeal against sentence — reckless infliction of grievous bodily harm — victim 9-week-old infant — sentencing Judge took matters of age and dysfunctional childhood into account in accordance with Bugmy v The Queen principles — sentencing Judge took into account impact of applicant’s background on his moral culpability — criminality involved repeated assaults on a helpless infant — stern sentence inevitable — appeal dismissed.

Appeal against sentence — applicant juvenile and convicted of armed robbery in company — sentenced to period of detention of 15 months with conviction recorded — applicant refused to accept responsibility for offence and had relevant lengthy criminal history sentence — recording of conviction did not render sentence manifestly excessive.

Severity appeal — sexual penetration of child under 16 (3 composite charges) — Drug trafficking (6 charges) — sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, non-parole period 2 years, 6 months — Difference in age and maturity, applicant was 18, victim 13 — Applicant aware sexual activity unlawful — weight given to guilty pleas, prior good character, youth, good prospects of rehabilitation, remorse and delay — Sentence within range — Leave to appeal refused.

Severity appeal — applicant pleaded guilty to 3 counts of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent with a person under 16 years and 3 counts of aggravated indecent assault of a person under 16 years — applicant sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year, 6 months — 16-year delay in prosecution — applicant no longer has benefit of serving sentence in juvenile detention centre — offending considered significant and involved coercion — applicant convicted of a number of offences including offences of violence, drug offences, two offences of driving while disqualified and two offences of contravening an apprehended violence order between 2004–2013 — no subsequent sexual offending, but criminal record shows disregard for the law was not the product of mere immature offending — sentence was not unjust nor manifestly excessive — appeal dismissed.

Committing indecent act with child under 16 (3 charges), producing child pornography for use through carriage service and knowingly possessing child pornography — sentenced to community correction orders for 3 and a half years, with conditions, and three year good behaviour bond — mitigating circumstances of age, death of mother, groomed online to commit offence — excellent prospects for rehabilitation — sentence imposed by the judge was not manifestly inadequate — appeals dismissed.

Sentencing appeal — 16-year-old pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm — applicant/Crown requested sentence for two related offences under s 166 certificate Criminal Procedure Act 1986 — sentences of imprisonment imposed — appeal on grounds that s 166 certificate procedure not available — applicant must establish sentence unreasonable or unjust — sentences not manifestly excessive — appeal allowed and dismissed.

Sentencing appeal — leave to appeal granted — youth aged 16 years — affected by alcohol and ecstasy — six offences committed at an 18th birthday party — causing grievous bodily harm with intent — reckless wounding in company causing actual bodily harm — affray — common assault — assault occasioning actual bodily harm — causing catastrophic brain injuries to one victim with consequential cognitive impairments and permanent physical injuries (count 1) — objective seriousness of a high order — whether failure to pay proper regard to the fact that offences other than count 1 could have been dealt with in the Children’s Court — due to the extremely violent conduct, other relevant counts (numbers 3 to 7) could not be dealt with under s 18 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 — no miscarriage of justice or serious injustice demonstrated — whether failure to take into account youth’s immaturity other than in relation to the issue of rehabilitation — no failure demonstrated — youth sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years — aggregate sentence not manifestly excessive — appeal dismissed.

Sentencing appeal — youth aged under 18 — cognitive impairment — emotional immaturity — multiple offences — aggravated armed robbery in adult company and armed with a dangerous weapon — aggregate sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years — whether failure to properly apply principle for sentencing youthful offenders — failure to take into account the youth’s no prior criminal history, emotional immaturity and cognitive impairment — no evidence of “profound deprivation” — sentence not manifestly excessive even given the significance of the subjective features affecting the youth — appeal against sentence dismissed.

Sentencing appeal — youth aged 17 years and 3 months at time of offence — Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder — borderline intellectual disability — manslaughter — single punch — early guilty plea — sentence of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 11 months — whether sentencing judge sentenced applicant on basis of factual findings not open — matter of motivations a point of serious dispute — sentencing judge made no order under s 19(3) Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 with regard to the sentence for the serious children’s indictable offence of manslaughter — sentence not manifestly excessive — appeal dismissed.

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.

Sentence appeal — offender 17-and-a-half at the time of the offence — offender aged 55 years at the time of sentence — indecent assault committed 38 years earlier by the then young person on 9-year-old boy contrary to s 81 (rep) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) — further historical indecent assault on 12-year-old girl contrary to s 76 (rep) Crimes Act on a Form 1 — sentencing judge convicted applicant and imposed 2-year good behaviour bond — essential objective of application was to have the formal conviction expunged — sentencing judge failed to take into account sentencing options under the Child Welfare Act 1939 (NSW) (rep) — sentencing judge failed to sentence in accordance with standards at time of the offence — sentence imposed on applicant clearly within the range of sentences which could be imposed — sentence not unreasonable or plainly unjust but leave to appeal granted as one ground of appeal made out — appeal against conviction dismissed — offence warranted withholding, to some degree, leniency to the applicant in light of his youth — no lesser sentence warranted in law.

Sentencing appeal — sentencing adult for sexual offences committed as juvenile — effect of delay between the commission of the offences and when the charges were laid — whether sufficient allowance made for applicant’s youth at time of offending — whether sentence accorded with sentencing principles applied at time of offending — no need for further rehabilitation — use of victim impact statement — statement not limited to harm directly resulting from offence whether to consider ground of manifest excess if specific error established — whether need for appeal court to determine appropriate sentence — finding that it is not sufficient to ask if impugned sentence within range — Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601 applied — s 6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Sentencing appeal — offences involved the use of dangerous weapons, four armed robbery offences as well as an aggravated break and enter offence, most offences were committed in the company with another person — whether there was failure to give appropriate weight to age and background when assessing moral culpability — compelling evidence of the applicant’s personal circumstances — applicant’s intelligence assessed in the mild intellectual disability range and the applicant had a serious drug habit — whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive — although leave to appeal was granted, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

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.

Aggravated break and enter commit serious indictable offence — sexual assault — circumstances of aggravation in the deprivation of liberty of the victim — young person aged 16 years at the time of the offence — sentence of a term of imprisonment of 8 years — appeal — whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive because of a failure to properly reflect the applicant’s youth, mental illness and totality in the sentence imposed — principles relating to mental illness and to youth canvassed — no identifiable or manifest error — appeal dismissed.

Manslaughter — single punch constituting an unlawful and dangerous act — principles relevant to sentencing young offenders — considerations of punishment, general deterrence and rehabilitation when sentencing young offenders — whether sentencing judge had sufficient regard to offender’s youth and immaturity — whether sentence manifestly excessive — open to sentencing judge to find applicant conducted himself in an adult manner and had committed a crime of violence of considerable gravity (see R v KT [2007] NSWSC 83 at [9-1240]).

Offences include stealing a motor vehicle, aggravated armed robbery and maliciously shooting with intent to prevent lawful apprehension — two offenders, including applicant who was a young offender — applicant evidence of an unfortunate family history — two of the crimes committed were of considerable gravity — Judge at first instance was well within the confines of the sentencing discretion he had — appeal dismissed.

Appeal against sentence of 3 years 3 months imprisonment with non-parole period of 1 year 6 months — offence of aggravated robbery causing grievous bodily harm — whether sentencing judge erred in failing to have regard to youth in assessing moral culpability and weight afforded to general deterrence — errors established — where same sentencing judge sentenced co-offender — where same errors were established and co-offender re-sentenced on appeal — issue of parity addressed when during re-sentence – appeal allowed and offender re-sentenced to 3 years 3 months imprisonment with non-parole period of 1 year.

Appeal against sentence of 12 years imprisonment with non-parole period of 9 years imprisonment — offence of doing an act in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act — large body of material addressing offender’s youth, lack of insight, mental illness, remorse and prospect of rehabilitation — whether error in failing to make findings in respect of offender’s subjective case — whether sentence manifestly excessive — significance for purpose of re-sentencing of harsher conditions of imprisonment than could have been foreseen — significance of subsequently enacted legislation restricting availability of parole — appeal allowed and offender re-sentenced to 7 years and 6 months imprisonment.

Appeal against sentence of 3 years imprisonment with non-parole period of 12 months imprisonment — TM 15 years old — pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery causing grievous bodily harm and a further charge of robbery in company was taken into account on sentence — sentencing judge failed to explain how TM’s young age was taken into account when assessing moral culpability — failed to have regard to TM’s young age when considering emphasis to be given to general deterrence — original sentence quashed — re-sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 9 months, with an additional term of 2 years and 3 months imprisonment.

Sentence appeal — DM 16 years and 8 months old and DS 15 years — DM and DS had dysfunctional upbringings and mental health issues — various offences including murder and take and drive motor vehicle without consent of owner while owner present in circumstances of aggravation — DS sentenced to imprisonment totalling 18 years and 4 months, including a sentence of 15 years and 4 months for murder — DM sentenced to imprisonment totalling 35 years and 6 months, including a sentence of 31 years and 6 months for murder — assessment of objective seriousness of DS’s offence by reference to DM’s offending was erroneous as proper approach was to sentence DS for offence that he committed — sentence imposed on DS for the take and drive conveyance offence excessive — assessment of objective seriousness of DM’s offence of murder as substantially above the mid-range of objective seriousness was open to sentencing judge — no errors made in sentencing judge’s consideration of youth, background of dysfunction, mental illness — unnecessary to address parity between sentences — sentences imposed on DM manifestly excessive — appeal allowed — DS re-sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 years and 6 months, non-parole of 10 years — DM re-sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 27 years, non-parole period 20 years and 7 months.

Severity appeal — applicant convicted of one count of importing a marketable quantity of MDMA — sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years with 18 months parole — offender aged 18 years at offending — failure to properly consider offender’s youth, prior good behaviour and ongoing rehabilitation — appeal allowed — re-sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, 3 months, period of full-time custody 15 months, condition of good behaviour for 12 months post-release.

Severity appeal — applicant convicted of two counts of reckless wounding, affray, aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence — sentenced to 5 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months — social disadvantage and hardship — excellent upbringing with non-biological parents until aged 13 — return to biological family where criminal conduct normalised — alcohol and drug abuse, and history of offending — childhood and adolescent years equally formative — primary judge erred in not applying Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 principles — reduced moral culpability notwithstanding passage of time and intervening custodial sentences — effects of deprivation do not diminish over time — appeal allowed — re-sentenced to aggregate sentence of 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.

Severity appeal — applicant 16 years at time of offending, not sentenced until 45 years later — applicant pleaded guilty to attempted buggery and indecent assault on a male — aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years 7 months — applicant sexually abused as a child — assessment of objective seriousness on a collective basis was an error — aggregate sentence manifestly excessive — objective seriousness of offences is below mid-range — leave to appeal granted — appellant sentenced to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years.

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.

Applicant sentenced to 5 years, 3 months and 21 days’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years for 3 charges of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 years — application for leave to appeal against sentence granted — early guilty plea, young offender, remorse, low risk of recidivism, family support — need for protective custody in adult gaol — applicant re-sentenced to 2 years, 10 months and 21 days’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months.

Severity appeal — 18-year-old applicant sent messages to 15-year-old victim to procure sexual activity — applicant sought money from the victim in exchange for destroying photographs she had sent to him — applicant sentenced to 4 years, 4 months imprisonment with non-parole of 2 years for using a carriage service to solicit child pornography material and procuring a person under 16 years to engage in sexual activity contrary to s 474.26 Criminal Code (Cth) — serious mental health issues at time of offending — sentence manifestly excessive — applicant re-sentenced to 2 years with non-parole period of 9 months.

Severity — sexual offences — at first instance applicant sentenced to 5 years with non-parole period of 2 years 9 months, co-offender received a lesser sentence due to age and positive background report — sentencing judge erred in finding the applicant was a leader in relation to the offending conduct — applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance when comparing his sentence to that of his co-accused — Leave to appeal granted — sentence imposed at first instance quashed — offender re-sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years 6 months with non-parole period of 2 years 5 months.

Sentencing appeal — 13 year-old pleaded guilty to serious sexual offences on younger relatives — sentence of imprisonment imposed — strong evidence of rehabilitation — interference with education of applicant — primary judge erred in deciding no alternatives to full-time custodial sentence were appropriate — applicant’s rehabilitation should be primary focus of proceedings — matter remitted to District Court for re-sentencing.

Sentencing appeal — youth under 18 years of age at the time of the offence — aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence — reckless wounding, in circumstances of aggravation — being in company — sentence of imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months imposed by sentencing judge — conceded failure of sentencing judge to apply provisions of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 — matter remitted.