Howard v R [2019] NSWCCA 109

Howard v R [2019] NSWCCA 109

By majority, leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed because, although the applicant's admissions fell within s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the failure to seek a reduction on that basis before the sentencing judge did not cause a miscarriage of justice. However, the sentence was manifestly excessive because the applicant's youth, immaturity, impulsive conduct, genuine remorse, developing insight and favourable prospects of rehabilitation were not sufficiently reflected in the sentence imposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['sending an Explosive Substance With Intent to Burn' 'youthful Offenders' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'assistance to Law Enforcement Authorities' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'form 1 Offence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sending an Explosive Substance With Intent to Burn' 'youthful Offenders' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'assistance to Law Enforcement Authorities' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'form 1 Offence']

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 Imposed in the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to have regard to the applicant's assistance to authorities under s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)." 'Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the applicant's youth and immaturity, including impulsivity and limited emotional maturity, were sufficiently reflected in the sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed because, although the applicant's admissions fell within s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the failure to seek a reduction on that basis before the sentencing judge did not cause a miscarriage of justice. However, the sentence was manifestly excessive because the applicant's youth, immaturity, impulsive conduct, genuine remorse, developing insight and favourable prospects of rehabilitation were not sufficiently reflected in the sentence imposed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is allowed.' 'The sentence imposed in the District Court is quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 9 months commencing on 12 April 2016 and expiring on 11 January 2023, with a non-parole period of 4 years commencing...