Harkin v R [2020] NSWCCA 242

Harkin v R [2020] NSWCCA 242

The appeal was dismissed because no House error or manifest excess was established. The medical evidence did not show that the applicant was in a psychotic or paranoid state or that any mental condition caused the offending or reduced moral culpability; no such causative submission had been made below. The sentencing judge did take the applicant's childhood trauma into account. It was open to reject provocation because the applicant left the scene, armed himself and returned, and it was open to reject remorse because of his lack of insight and failure to accept responsibility. The partial accumulation of sentences for the current offences and breached bonds did not offend totality, given...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Imposed in the District Court of Nsw; Leave Granted, Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['reckless Wounding Causing Grievous Bodily Harm in Company' 'affray' 'mental Health and Moral Culpability' 'disadvantaged Childhood' 'remorse' 'provocation' 'totality Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'breach of Conditional Liberty']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['reckless Wounding Causing Grievous Bodily Harm in Company' 'affray' 'mental Health and Moral Culpability' 'disadvantaged Childhood' 'remorse' 'provocation' 'totality Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'breach of Conditional Liberty']

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 Imposed in the District Court of Nsw; Leave Granted, Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge adequately took into account reduced moral culpability by reason of the applicant's mental health condition." "Whether the sentencing judge adequately took into account the applicant's disadvantaged early life." 'Whether the sentencing judge gave adequate weight to remorse and provocation as mitigating factors under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).' 'Whether the principle of totality ought to have been applied further in favour of the applicant.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because no House error or manifest excess was established. The medical evidence did not show that the applicant was in a psychotic or paranoid state or that any mental condition caused the offending or reduced moral culpability; no such causative submission had been made below. The sentencing judge did take the applicant's childhood trauma into account. It was open to reject provocation because the applicant left the scene, armed himself and returned, and it was open to reject remorse because of his lack of insight and failure to accept responsibility. The partial accumulation of sentences for the current offences and breached bonds did not offend totality, given...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted.' 'The appeal be dismissed.']