Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
Lai v R [2021] NSWCCA 217
In this case the CCA has criticised the practice of tendering a letter on sentence, without exposing the offender to cross-examination.
Mourtada v R [2021] NSWCCA 211
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has added yet more commentary to saga interpreting the legislation providing for the imposition of an Intensive Correction Order (‘ICO’)
Meoli v R [2021] NSWCCA 213
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that whilst prospects of rehabilitation, and unlikelihood of reoffending are separate and distinct factors, the burden of establishing the latter falls on the offender – and in any event the two issues will often be co-extensive.
Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207
This decision of the CCA exposes a potential problem in trying to apply the principles from Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 (‘Bugmy’) to cases where there may not have been a lengthy history of trauma, but rather only one or two traumatic episodes, and perhaps against a background of less depri
Naberezhnov v R [2021] NSWCCA 142
You might think drugs and music festivals seem to go hand-in-glove; a fact which was as true at Woodstock as it is today. In this decision, however, the CCA has used the occasion to observe that just because it might be notorious that drugs are consumed and distributed at music festivals, that gener
Ke v R [2021] NSWCCA 177
In this case the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that when considering the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea sentencing discounts, if it happens to be the case that the parties failed to record in the Case Conferencing Certificate an offer which was formally made in writing by a defendant, the
Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
In this decision, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has endorsed a practice of reducing, rather than backdating, sentences of imprisonment when there is pre-sentence custody and an Intensive Correction Order (‘ICO’) is ultimately imposed.
Fisher v R; R v Fisher [2021] NSWCCA 91
In this decision the CCA has reviewed the authorities relating to self-induced intoxication on sentence.
R v SS [2021] NSWCCA 56
In this (pair of) decision(s), the Court of Criminal Appeal has held that the so-called Ellis-discount has to an extent been overtaken by legislation – although case law does establish generally-accepted categories of assistance. Merely pleading guilty and confessing to the offence is unlikely to be
Bentley v R; Davies v R; Thomas v R; Tilley v R [2021] NSWCCA 18
In this unusual case the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has considered the onus of proof in relation to remorse. The overall onus lies upon the offender, on the balance of probabilities, to establish genuine remorse. But where there is a factual issue which might demonstrate an absence of genuine
Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318
This decision adds another chapter to each of two ongoing areas of controversy: the exact nature of District Court appeals, and the content of the test when considering an Intensive Correction Order (‘ICO’). Here the Court of Appeal has determined that it is an error, when considering a sentence app
Ilic v R [2020] NSWCCA 300
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) (McCallum JA, Wright J agreeing; Garling J also agreeing, though for slightly different reasons) has held that Commonwealth matters are not capable of being placed on a Form 1 (as distinct from a schedule pursuant to Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s16BA).
Hamilton v DPP [2020] NSWSC 1745
This decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court deals with the scenario where a defendant agrees that they have committed the offence charged, but disagrees about the particulars of the allegation. It determines that the question of whether the defendant should be committed for sentence (with a
Eakin v R [2020] NSWCCA 294
In this decision the CCA has held that where a sentencing judge sets up a parity relationship between offenders, and a co-offender subsequently gets their sentence reduced, then that might give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance – even if you already had a lower sentence – allowing an appeal t
Jackson v R [2020] NSWCCA 230
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has pointed out that although advanced age can be relevant in many ways, it does not follow that elderly offenders are necessarily entitled to a lower sentence.
Pehar v R [2020] NSWCCA 118
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has confirmed that an offence is not aggravated merely because another person is present ‘in company’ with the offender. For the statutory aggravating factor to be engaged, there must be a principled explanation as to why the presence of another person renders th
Park v R [2020] NSWCCA 90
If you think the question of Local Court sentencing jurisdiction has been settled for about 20 years, prepare to be unsettled. In this decision, by the barest of majorities, the CCA has endorsed the existing position – but it has been found to be ‘arguable’ that the way we have been approaching this
Amante v R [2020] NSWCCA 34
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has found that a court is not taking ‘judicial notice’ of a fact where what it is doing is combining pieces of evidence from which a particular finding might be inferred – like combining a photo with Agreed Facts to make a finding that the structural integrity of
Wood v R [2019] NSWCCA 309
The CCA has made it clear in this decision that there needs to be a bright-line distinction between factors which go to the objective seriousness of the offending, and those which go to the subjective case of the offender. However, they have also held that the concept of ‘moral culpability’ stands s
Neil Harris (a pseudonym) v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 236
This decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal deals with two important issues: when do you have to challenge a sentencing judge on a favourable position they expressed to your opponent? And can adverse use be made of affidavits of assistance if they are not induced? The answers are, respectively: Wh