Apulu v R [2022] NSWCCA 244

Apulu v R [2022] NSWCCA 244

By majority, the co-offender's sentence in the Children's Court did not require reduction of the applicant's sentence: the Children's Court regime was significantly different, the sentencing judge had insufficient material to undertake a meaningful parity comparison, and any reduction for parity would not reflect the seriousness of the offending. The sentencing judge did not misapply sentencing principles, did not impermissibly double count weapon use, and was entitled to reject or give limited weight to the asserted psychiatric, remorse, character, Bugmy and rehabilitation matters. The aggregate sentence for two violent armed robberies was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court; Leave Granted, Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery With an Offensive Weapon' 'parity Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'guideline Judgment in R V Henry and Ors' 'aggravating Factors and Objective Gravity' 'mental Health and Sentencing' "children's Court Sentencing Regime"]
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['armed Robbery With an Offensive Weapon' 'parity Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'guideline Judgment in R V Henry and Ors' 'aggravating Factors and Objective Gravity' 'mental Health and Sentencing' "children's Court Sentencing Regime"]

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 Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court; Leave Granted, Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by not giving weight to parity with the co-offender who was sentenced in the Children's Court, thereby creating a justifiable sense of grievance." 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge misapplied sentencing principles concerning psychiatric condition, moral culpability, maturity, character, disadvantaged upbringing, risk of reoffending, rehabilitation, remorse, the Henry guideline, and double counting of weapon use.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the co-offender's sentence in the Children's Court did not require reduction of the applicant's sentence: the Children's Court regime was significantly different, the sentencing judge had insufficient material to undertake a meaningful parity comparison, and any reduction for parity would not reflect the seriousness of the offending. The sentencing judge did not misapply sentencing principles, did not impermissibly double count weapon use, and was entitled to reject or give limited weight to the asserted psychiatric, remorse, character, Bugmy and rehabilitation matters. The aggregate sentence for two violent armed robberies was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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