Newman v R [2021] NSWCCA 101

Newman v R [2021] NSWCCA 101

The sentencing judge did not err in the treatment of the applicant's disadvantaged background. It was open to find that the applicant's upbringing, while less than ideal, did not amount to profound childhood deprivation of the kind considered in Bugmy v The Queen, particularly given the stable care and positive relationships provided by his grandparents. The psychological evidence was expressed in terms of possibility rather than probability and did not establish that ADHD or any mental disorder played a role in the offending or reduced moral culpability. The applicant's background was nevertheless considered as part of his subjective case. No appealable error was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'damage Property by Fire' 'pervert the Course of Justice' 'disadvantaged Background' 'bugmy Principles' 'moral Culpability' 'general Deterrence' 'psychological Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sentence Appeal' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'damage Property by Fire' 'pervert the Course of Justice' 'disadvantaged Background' 'bugmy Principles' 'moral Culpability' 'general Deterrence' 'psychological Evidence']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in his consideration of the applicant's disadvantaged background." "Whether the applicant's background amounted to profound childhood deprivation attracting the principles in Bugmy v The Queen." "Whether the sentencing judge's findings concerning the psychologist's report and the absence of a causal link between mental condition and offending were open to him."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in the treatment of the applicant's disadvantaged background. It was open to find that the applicant's upbringing, while less than ideal, did not amount to profound childhood deprivation of the kind considered in Bugmy v The Queen, particularly given the stable care and positive relationships provided by his grandparents. The psychological evidence was expressed in terms of possibility rather than probability and did not establish that ADHD or any mental disorder played a role in the offending or reduced moral culpability. The applicant's background was nevertheless considered as part of his subjective case. No appealable error was established.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.' 'The appeal against sentence is dismissed.']