Lambkin v R [2020] NSWCCA 327

Lambkin v R [2020] NSWCCA 327

No sentencing error was established. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the applicant's role as a retained firefighter as increasing moral culpability; was not bound to find remorse on the evidence; properly assessed the very late guilty plea at 5% and the limited, untimely and not wholly truthful assistance...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['encouraging Commission of an Offence' 'intentionally Causing a Fire and Being Reckless as to Its Spread' 'moral Culpability of Retained Firefighter' 'remorse' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'assistance to Authorities' 'form 1 Offences' 'mental Condition and Onerous Custody' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['encouraging Commission of an Offence' 'intentionally Causing a Fire and Being Reckless as to Its Spread' 'moral Culpability of Retained Firefighter' 'remorse' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'assistance to Authorities' 'form 1 Offences' 'mental Condition and Onerous Custody' 'manifest Excess']

Source-derived case record

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 in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant bore a high degree of culpability as a retained firefighter.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the evidence did not establish that the applicant had genuinely accepted responsibility for his actions or acknowledged their consequences.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in awarding a 5% discount for the applicant's pleas of guilty." "Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying a 5% discount for the applicant's assistance to authorities rather than the same discount as the co-offender." "Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that there was no evidence warranting a finding that the applicant's mental condition would make imprisonment more onerous." 'Whether the total sentence, taking into account the Form 1 offences, was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

No sentencing error was established. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the applicant's role as a retained firefighter as increasing moral culpability; was not bound to find remorse on the evidence; properly assessed the very late guilty plea at 5% and the limited, untimely and not wholly truthful assistance at 5%; had no evidence that the applicant's mental condition would make imprisonment more onerous; and dealt with the Form 1 offences consistently with authority. The sentence was not shown to be manifestly excessive, so leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.']