Simpson v R [2019] NSWCCA 137

Simpson v R [2019] NSWCCA 137

The sentencing judge erred by assessing all three offences as mid-range or just below mid-range without explaining that conclusion in the face of both parties' submissions that the objective criminality was towards the lower end, and by apparently misapprehending s 189 of the Crimes Act as applying only to stolen property valued at $5,000 or less. Those errors were material, so leave was granted, the appeal allowed, and the applicant was resentenced on the basis that each offence was in the low range of objective seriousness, while still giving weight to his criminal history, offending on parole, need for deterrence, early plea and special circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; original sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to a lesser aggregate sentence.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'break, Enter and Steal' 'take and Drive Vehicle Without Consent' 'dispose of Stolen Property' 'early Guilty Plea Discount' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'break, Enter and Steal' 'take and Drive Vehicle Without Consent' 'dispose of Stolen Property' 'early Guilty Plea Discount' 'special Circumstances']

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 and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective gravity of the offences as mid-range or just below mid-range.' 'Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether resentencing was warranted after error in the assessment of objective seriousness.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by assessing all three offences as mid-range or just below mid-range without explaining that conclusion in the face of both parties' submissions that the objective criminality was towards the lower end, and by apparently misapprehending s 189 of the Crimes Act as applying only to stolen property valued at $5,000 or less. Those errors were material, so leave was granted, the appeal allowed, and the applicant was resentenced on the basis that each offence was in the low range of objective seriousness, while still giving weight to his criminal history, offending on parole, need for deterrence, early plea and special circumstances.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; original sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to a lesser aggregate sentence.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Allow the appeal.' 'Quash the sentence imposed by Judge Wilson SC in the District Court on 15 June 2018.' "In lieu, sentence the appellant to an aggregate sentence of four years' imprisonment commencing 28 October 2016 and expiring 27 October 2020 with a non-parole period of two years and...