Bhatia v R [2024] NSWCCA 28

Bhatia v R [2024] NSWCCA 28

The applicant did not establish error because the evidence relevant and known to the sentencing court, including matters concerning his lack of insight, remorse, rehabilitation and acceptance of responsibility, did not oblige Payne DCJ to make a favourable finding that he was unlikely to re-offend. Alternatively, the sentencing judge's description of the issue as "neutral" was itself a finding, open on the material, that the likelihood of re-offending was neither established as likely nor unlikely and was not a mitigating factor in the applicant's favour.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'likelihood of Re Offending' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'remorse' 'mitigating Factors' 'findings of Fact on Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'likelihood of Re Offending' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'remorse' 'mitigating Factors' 'findings of Fact on Sentence']

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 Sentence From the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge was obliged to make a finding that the applicant was unlikely to re-offend under s 21A(3)(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).' 'Whether the sentencing judge\'s statement that the applicant\'s likelihood of re-offending was "neutral" was a failure to make a finding or a permissible finding on the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish error because the evidence relevant and known to the sentencing court, including matters concerning his lack of insight, remorse, rehabilitation and acceptance of responsibility, did not oblige Payne DCJ to make a favourable finding that he was unlikely to re-offend. Alternatively, the sentencing judge's description of the issue as "neutral" was itself a finding, open on the material, that the likelihood of re-offending was neither established as likely nor unlikely and was not a mitigating factor in the applicant's favour.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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