Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
Kljaic v R [2023] NSWCCA 225
In this first of a duo of (apparently unrelated) cases on the topic of when and how sentences can be backdated, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has concluded that in appropriate circumstances an available means of recognising difficult conditions in custody is to backdate a sentence to a date b
Marai v R [2023] NSWCCA 224
This case also grapples with the question of back-dating sentences of imprisonment. Here, the CCA has held that in appropriate circumstances it may be appropriate to give full credit for time spent in immigration detention, even if the offender was technically on bail at the time.
Brzozowski v R [2023] NSWCCA 129
The CCA has drawn out the fine distinctions between regret about consequences, and remorse as to the original offending which led to those consequences – and held that it is only the latter which can result in a finding leading to mitigation of a sentence for the purpose of s 21A(3)(i).
R v Sharrouf [2023] NSWCCA 137
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has determined that the use of a s 10A (i.e. a conviction with no other penalty) should be rare in domestic violence offences where the offence is considered to be objectively serious.
Liu v R [2023] NSWCCA 30
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has confirmed Western Australian authority as to the principles applicable when sentencing an offender of advanced age. Those principles essentially distil to the proposition that advanced age must be taken into account as a mitigating factor on
Bhatia v R [2023] NSWCCA 12
Where a close friend or family member commits a sexual offence, they may still be entitled to rely on good character despite the statutory exclusion, provided there is no evidence that they used that good character to get access to the victim. As ever, no prescriptive approach can be set out.
Rex v Taylor [2022] NSWCCA 256
In this decision the CCA has held that there is no rule of law which concludes that in all cases involving a mandatory minimum it is a precondition, in order to obtain that minimum sentence, for a sentencing judge to conclude that the sentence is at the bottom of the range of objective seriousness.
White v R [2022] NSWCCA 241
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that there is a different test to be applied when a defendant seeks to withdraw their plea, depending on whether the plea was entered before or after conviction. Where the plea is entered before conviction and sentence, the test is an ‘i
Baker v R [2022] NSWCCA 195
In this decision the CCA has considered how threats can be taken into account as an aggravating factor on sentencing. By majority, the Court has held that a statement can constitute a threat even if it is not explicit, and even if it does not include the time-honoured words ‘or else’, so long as the
Wornes v R [2022] NSWCCA 184
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that there is no rule of law that personality disorders cannot be used to mitigate an offender’s sentence. Each case turns on its facts, but at least where the personality disorder leads to distorted views of personal relationships or impairs emotional r
Ahmad v R [2022] NSWCCA 144
When an offender is on parole, but parole is revoked and a warrant issued, an offence committed whilst the offender is still at large is not committed whilst on ‘conditional liberty’. But in this decision the CCA has pointed out that if the Parole Authority backdates the revocation, that doesn’t ret
Hraichie v R [2022] NSWCCA 155
When an offender commits an offence whilst already in custody, the law provides that in certain circumstances, the sentence for the fresh offence should be completely accumulated on the original sentence. In this decision, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that if an offender is bail ref
R v Boyd [2022] NSWCCA 120
Sentencing courts normally aren’t allowed to take into account self-induced intoxication in mitigation of a sentence; the sentencing legislation prohibits it. But in this decision, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has identified that there may be circumstances – most notably, where there is drug
Young (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 111
In this decision, the CCA has held that where a sentence has been delayed, it is permissible to take into account in mitigation not only the fact that the sentencing options have changed since the offences, but also (perhaps curiously) the very fact that the offender has been disadvantaged because t
R v Obbens [2022] NSWCCA 109
In this judgment the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has said that the focus when sentencing an offender for fresh sentences which overlap a stale sentence imposed some time ago, the focus is on the totality of the sentence at the time it is imposed. In other words, the question is what the appropr
Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) a five-judge bench has overturned NSW and interstate authority on the question of hardship to third parties when sentencing federal offenders. The Court held that there is no requirement that such hardship meet the description of being ‘exception
Darcy v R [2022] NSWCCA 54
As a Table 1 offence, the various forms of offence in s 114 often offer parties a less serious alternative charge in cases involving robberies and break and enter offences. Unfortunately, the ‘sister’ offence in s 115 committing a s 114 offence, having previously been convicted of an indictable offe
McKinley v R [2022] NSWCCA 14
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) upheld the appeal on the basis that the ‘Ellis’ discount given to the offender for disclosing previously-unknown offending was insufficient. The decision seems to update, to some extent, previous authority which had purported to set arithmetical
Black v R [2022] NSWCCA 17
What is the appropriate discount in a matter on indictment if a defendant offers in the Local Court to plead guilty to an alternative charge which is on the charge certificate, but that offer is not accepted by the prosecution until the matter has already been committed for trial? In this case, the
Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
Most criminal law practitioners will be familiar with the authorities urging sentencing courts to exercise caution before giving any weight to untested statements made by offenders to experts. Here, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has observed that there is no ‘principle’ that such statements a