Higgins v R [2020] NSWCCA 169

Higgins v R [2020] NSWCCA 169

The sentencing judge was not required or permitted to give an additional quantified discount for contrition beyond the 25% statutory/utilitarian guilty plea discount, and the evidence did not establish genuine remorse. The aggregate sentence, although imposed for offences assessed as lower in objective seriousness, was not manifestly excessive because the sentencing judge was entitled to take account of the applicant's offending while on parole, lengthy criminal history, need for specific deterrence and community protection, guarded rehabilitation prospects, and mitigating deprived background. No misapplication of principle or other error was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal on ground 1 refused; leave to appeal on ground 2 granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Excess' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'contrition and Remorse' 'possess Prohibited Weapon' 'escape Police Custody' 'affray' 'resist Police' 'conditional Liberty' 'criminal History' 'deprived Background']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Excess' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'contrition and Remorse' 'possess Prohibited Weapon' 'escape Police Custody' 'affray' 'resist Police' 'conditional Liberty' 'criminal History' 'deprived Background']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by allowing only a 25% discount for guilty pleas and not giving an additional quantified discount for contrition.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence of 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was not required or permitted to give an additional quantified discount for contrition beyond the 25% statutory/utilitarian guilty plea discount, and the evidence did not establish genuine remorse. The aggregate sentence, although imposed for offences assessed as lower in objective seriousness, was not manifestly excessive because the sentencing judge was entitled to take account of the applicant's offending while on parole, lengthy criminal history, need for specific deterrence and community protection, guarded rehabilitation prospects, and mitigating deprived background. No misapplication of principle or other error was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal on ground 1 refused; leave to appeal on ground 2 granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal on ground 1 is refused;' 'Leave to appeal on ground 2 is granted;' 'The appeal is dismissed.']