DUNN v R [2010] NSWCCA 128

DUNN v R [2010] NSWCCA 128

Leave was granted but the appeal was dismissed because, although the sentencing judge's expression of the standard non-parole period objective seriousness assessment was inadequate, no lesser sentence was required in law. The sentence was markedly lenient given the applicant's repeated kneeing of the victim to the face and the permanent loss of sight in the victim's right eye, and the Local Court submission failed because the applicant was sentenced in the District Court after pleading guilty to a statutory alternative accepted in satisfaction of an indictment for an offence triable only on indictment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['recklessly Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'plea of Guilty to Uncharged Offence in Satisfaction of Indictment' 'summary Disposal in Local Court' 'excessive Self Defence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['recklessly Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'plea of Guilty to Uncharged Offence in Satisfaction of Indictment' 'summary Disposal in Local Court' 'excessive Self Defence']

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 Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to make a finding about the level of objective seriousness of the offence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge was required to meaningfully compare the offence with an abstract offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to have regard to the fact that an offence against s 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 was capable of being dealt with summarily.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted but the appeal was dismissed because, although the sentencing judge's expression of the standard non-parole period objective seriousness assessment was inadequate, no lesser sentence was required in law. The sentence was markedly lenient given the applicant's repeated kneeing of the victim to the face and the permanent loss of sight in the victim's right eye, and the Local Court submission failed because the applicant was sentenced in the District Court after pleading guilty to a statutory alternative accepted in satisfaction of an indictment for an offence triable only on indictment.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']