Roulstone v R [2025] NSWCCA 7

Roulstone v R [2025] NSWCCA 7

The sentencing judge erred by using Form 1 offences to assess and elevate the objective seriousness of the principal offences, contrary to the established principles that Form 1 offences may bear only on personal deterrence and retribution and not the objective seriousness. This error affected the sentencing discretion, requiring the Court to resentence the applicant afresh with proper regard to the quantum and period attributable only to the principal charges.

Parties
Applicant: Dene John Roulstone; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal (sentence Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; aggregate sentence quashed; applicant resentenced; referred to Drug Court.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Sentence, Form 1 Offences, Objective Seriousness in Sentencing, Fraud, Compulsory Drug Treatment Order
Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence Form 1 Offences Objective Seriousness in Sentencing Fraud Compulsory Drug Treatment Order

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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dene John Roulstone

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal (sentence Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred by using Form 1 offences to determine the objective seriousness of the principal offences (counts 1, 5, 9 and 13)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be resentenced after establishing error in the original sentencing approach

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by using Form 1 offences to assess and elevate the objective seriousness of the principal offences, contrary to the established principles that Form 1 offences may bear only on personal deterrence and retribution and not the objective seriousness. This error affected the sentencing discretion, requiring the Court to resentence the applicant afresh with proper regard to the quantum and period attributable only to the principal charges.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; aggregate sentence quashed; applicant resentenced; referred to Drug Court.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal allowed.