Ward v R [2022] NSWCCA 290

Ward v R [2022] NSWCCA 290

Ground 1 failed because the sentencing judge expressly referred to the applicant's ADHD, depressive symptoms, Substance Use Disorders and very high consumption of illicit drugs, and was not required to spell out more explicitly his rejection of the submission that those matters reduced moral culpability or the need for deterrence. Ground 2 succeeded because, having regard to the objective gravity of the offence, the applicant's remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, background and subjective circumstances, the 8 year head sentence and 4 years 9 months non-parole period were plainly unjust and manifestly excessive; the sentencing purposes could be met by a substantially shorter sentence...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court at Wollongong
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months.
Legal Topics
['specially Aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'mental Health and Moral Culpability' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'manifest Excess' 'comparable Cases' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'domestic Violence'] ['specially Aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'mental Health and Moral Culpability' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'manifest Excess' 'comparable Cases' 'special Circumstances']

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 at Wollongong

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider the impact of the applicant's mental health on his moral culpability and the need for deterrence." 'Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ground 1 failed because the sentencing judge expressly referred to the applicant's ADHD, depressive symptoms, Substance Use Disorders and very high consumption of illicit drugs, and was not required to spell out more explicitly his rejection of the submission that those matters reduced moral culpability or the need for deterrence. Ground 2 succeeded because, having regard to the objective gravity of the offence, the applicant's remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, background and subjective circumstances, the 8 year head sentence and 4 years 9 months non-parole period were plainly unjust and manifestly excessive; the sentencing purposes could be met by a substantially shorter sentence...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Allow the appeal.' 'Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 7 May 2021 and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to imprisonment for a term of 5 years and 6 months commencing on 20 August 2020 and expiring on 19 February 2026 with a non-parole period of 3...