R v Trindall [2024] NSWDC 520

R v Trindall [2024] NSWDC 520

Given the seriousness of the offences, the aggravating circumstances, objective seriousness, and the offender's background (including documented childhood deprivation, trauma, mental health issues, substance abuse, and institutionalisation), a term of imprisonment is warranted and no alternative sentence is appropriate. While strong mitigating factors justify findings of special circumstances and a degree of leniency, the high risk of recidivism, lack of rehabilitative engagement, and community protection require custodial sentences. The appeal against sentence fails because the Local Court sentences imposed were appropriate in all the circumstances.

Parties
Offender: Sean William Trindall; Prosecutor: Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence and Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Property Offences, Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence, Aggravated Circumstances, Larceny, Fraud, Dishonestly Obtain Property by Deception, Sentencing, Appeal Against Sentence, Aggravating Factors, Breach of Conditional Liberty, Record of Previous Convictions, Guidelines for Sentencing, Role of Guidelines, Mitigating Factors, Plea of Guilty, Penalties, Imprisonment, Relevant Factors on Sentence, Deterrence, Moral Culpability, Objective Seriousness, Intensive Correction Order Not Appropriate, Sentencing Procedure, Instinctive Synthesis, Subjective Considerations on Sentence, Drug Addiction, Mental Disorders, Institutionalisation, Disadvantaged Childhood, Institutionalised Childhood Sexual Abuse
Criminal Law Property Offences Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence Aggravated Circumstances Larceny Fraud Dishonestly Obtain Property by Deception Sentencing +23 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sean William Trindall

Offender

Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentence and Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentencing for break, enter and commit serious indictable offence with aggravating circumstances
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence for dishonestly obtaining property by deception
  3. 3 Whether intensive correction order is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Given the seriousness of the offences, the aggravating circumstances, objective seriousness, and the offender's background (including documented childhood deprivation, trauma, mental health issues, substance abuse, and institutionalisation), a term of imprisonment is warranted and no alternative sentence is appropriate. While strong mitigating factors justify findings of special circumstances and a degree of leniency, the high risk of recidivism, lack of rehabilitative engagement, and community protection require custodial sentences. The appeal against sentence fails because the Local Court sentences imposed were appropriate in all the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal against sentence is dismissed; Local Court orders confirmed.
  • Aggregate sentence of 3 years' imprisonment imposed for both offences, commencing 20 January 2024.