R v Irwin [2019] NSWCCA 133

R v Irwin [2019] NSWCCA 133

The Court determined that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate due to failure to adequately assess the objective seriousness of the prohibited weapons offences, indicative sentences not reflecting seriousness of firearms offences, double counting through backdating sentence and finding special circumstances, and failure to properly apply the principle of totality. The aggregate sentence and non-parole period did not reflect the full extent of offending. The appeal was allowed, the original sentence quashed, and a new aggregate sentence and indicative sentences imposed to reflect the objective and subjective circumstances and correct application of...

Parties
Appellant: Crown; Respondent: Matthew Lindsay Irwin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal (criminal Sentencing) / Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; original sentence quashed; new aggregate sentence and indicative sentences imposed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Crown Appeal, Objective Seriousness, Indicative Sentences, Totality, Double Counting, Accumulation, Subjective Features, Bugmy Principles, Residual Discretion, Manifest Inadequacy
Criminal Law Sentencing Crown Appeal Objective Seriousness Indicative Sentences Totality Double Counting Accumulation +4 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 58 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown

Appellant

Matthew Lindsay Irwin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal (criminal Sentencing) / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Whether objective seriousness of prohibited weapons offences was properly assessed
  3. 3 Whether indicative sentences reflected seriousness of firearms and prohibited weapons offences

Ratio Decidendi

The Court determined that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate due to failure to adequately assess the objective seriousness of the prohibited weapons offences, indicative sentences not reflecting seriousness of firearms offences, double counting through backdating sentence and finding special circumstances, and failure to properly apply the principle of totality. The aggregate sentence and non-parole period did not reflect the full extent of offending. The appeal was allowed, the original sentence quashed, and a new aggregate sentence and indicative sentences imposed to reflect the objective and subjective circumstances and correct application of...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; original sentence quashed; new aggregate sentence and indicative sentences imposed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Quash the sentence imposed by English DCJ on 14 December 2018