R v Crumpton [2016] NSWCCA 261

R v Crumpton [2016] NSWCCA 261

The sentences were manifestly inadequate. The sentencing judge erred by taking into account an irrelevant consideration when assessing objective seriousness, by downplaying or confusing general deterrence with specific deterrence, and by ordering complete concurrency despite death and serious injury to different victims. The offences were serious, above mid-range in objective seriousness, and required greater punishment and deterrent effect. The residual discretion should not be exercised in the respondent's favour, and the original sentences should be quashed with the respondent referred for assessment for suitability for intensive correction in the community.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Appeal allowed; District Court sentences quashed; respondent referred for assessment as to suitability for intensive correction in the community; proceedings adjourned for that purpose.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'suspended Sentence' 'concurrency of Sentences' 'residual Discretion' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 're Sentence' 'reckless Operation of Aircraft']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'evidence'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'suspended Sentence' 'concurrency of Sentences' 'residual Discretion' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 're Sentence' 'reckless Operation of Aircraft']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for operating an aircraft in a manner reckless as to endanger life and reckless as to endanger a person were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in the approach to general deterrence.' 'Whether the wholly suspended sentences resulted in manifest inadequacy.' 'Whether the sentences should have been made wholly concurrent where the offending caused death to one victim and serious injury to another.' 'Whether further evidence sought to be adduced on appeal should be admitted.' 'Whether the residual discretion should be exercised in favour of the respondent despite error and manifest inadequacy.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences were manifestly inadequate. The sentencing judge erred by taking into account an irrelevant consideration when assessing objective seriousness, by downplaying or confusing general deterrence with specific deterrence, and by ordering complete concurrency despite death and serious injury to different victims. The offences were serious, above mid-range in objective seriousness, and required greater punishment and deterrent effect. The residual discretion should not be exercised in the respondent's favour, and the original sentences should be quashed with the respondent referred for assessment for suitability for intensive correction in the community.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; District Court sentences quashed; respondent referred for assessment as to suitability for intensive correction in the community; proceedings adjourned for that purpose.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Quash the sentences imposed in the District Court on 28 April 2016.' 'Refer the Respondent for assessment as to his suitability for intensive correction in the community, pursuant to Div 3 of Pt 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.' 'Adjourn the proceedings for that purpose.']