Twaddell v R [2019] NSWCCA 116

Twaddell v R [2019] NSWCCA 116

The appeal was allowed because the sentencing judge merely reproduced the agreed facts and failed to enunciate an independent evaluation of the objective seriousness of the offences. On re-sentence, the Court assessed each offence as below the mid-range but not markedly so, accepted that new evidence established a significant intellectual disability contributing to impaired decision making and reducing the weight of retribution, denunciation and general deterrence, and imposed a lesser aggregate sentence while maintaining the importance of personal deterrence and rehabilitation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Allowed and Applicant Re Sentenced
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced and eligible for release on parole immediately.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Steal' 'form 1 Matters' 'objective Seriousness' 'intellectual Disability' 'aggregate Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'parole']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Steal' 'form 1 Matters' 'objective Seriousness' 'intellectual Disability' 'aggregate Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'parole']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Allowed and Applicant Re Sentenced

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to assess the objective seriousness of the offences or failed to give reasons for those assessments.' 'Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred because the sentencing judge did not know, and therefore did not take into account, that the applicant suffered from an intellectual disability.' 'What sentence should be imposed on re-sentence in light of the offences, Form 1 matters, subjective case and new evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the sentencing judge merely reproduced the agreed facts and failed to enunciate an independent evaluation of the objective seriousness of the offences. On re-sentence, the Court assessed each offence as below the mid-range but not markedly so, accepted that new evidence established a significant intellectual disability contributing to impaired decision making and reducing the weight of retribution, denunciation and general deterrence, and imposed a lesser aggregate sentence while maintaining the importance of personal deterrence and rehabilitation.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced and eligible for release on parole immediately.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed.' 'The sentence passed in the District Court is quashed. In lieu, the applicant is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months commencing on 21 August 2016 and expiring on 20 February 2021, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9...