Patsan v R [2018] NSWCCA 129

Patsan v R [2018] NSWCCA 129

Leave to appeal was refused because no error was shown in treating the offending as serious domestic violence, in assessing objective seriousness as just below the middle of the range, in considering the victim's inability to retaliate, or in giving weight to general and specific deterrence and denunciation. The sentencing judge took the applicant's subjective circumstances into account, his bail conditions were not so restrictive as to amount to quasi-custody, and statistics did not demonstrate that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust, particularly where a Form 1 offence was taken into account.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal Against a Sentence Imposed in the District Court at Newcastle on 4 August 2017
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['manifest Excess' 'domestic Violence' 'recklessly Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Taken Into Account on Form 1' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'denunciation' 'sentencing Statistics']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manifest Excess' 'domestic Violence' 'recklessly Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Taken Into Account on Form 1' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'denunciation' 'sentencing Statistics']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal Against a Sentence Imposed in the District Court at Newcastle on 4 August 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, with an assault occasioning actual bodily harm charge taken into account on a Form 1, was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by emphasising the domestic relationship and the respective genders and physical capacities of the applicant and victim.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing objective seriousness or in finding that the applicant chose to assault the victim because she could not meaningfully retaliate.' "Whether insufficient weight was given to the applicant's subjective circumstances, including remorse, youth, good character, mental health, rehabilitation and bail conditions." 'Whether sentencing statistics and comparable cases demonstrated that the sentence was outside the permissible range.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because no error was shown in treating the offending as serious domestic violence, in assessing objective seriousness as just below the middle of the range, in considering the victim's inability to retaliate, or in giving weight to general and specific deterrence and denunciation. The sentencing judge took the applicant's subjective circumstances into account, his bail conditions were not so restrictive as to amount to quasi-custody, and statistics did not demonstrate that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust, particularly where a Form 1 offence was taken into account.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to appeal against sentence.']