Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18

Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18

The appeal was allowed because, although the sentencing judge accepted that the Bugmy principles were enlivened, he failed to give meaningful consideration to the significance of the applicant's profound childhood deprivation, including whether it contributed to the offending or reduced moral culpability and moderated the weight to be given to deterrence. On re-sentence, the Court accepted that the applicant's deprived childhood substantially caused his chronic drug addiction and recidivism, reduced his moral culpability, and required substantial weight to be given to rehabilitation, resulting in a lower sentence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence imposed at first instance quashed; applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'bugmy Principles' 'childhood Deprivation' 'moral Culpability' 'manifest Excess' 'home Invasion' 'form 1 Offence' 'rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sentence Appeal' 'bugmy Principles' 'childhood Deprivation' 'moral Culpability' 'manifest Excess' 'home Invasion' 'form 1 Offence' 'rehabilitation']

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

Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to make findings in relation to the operation of the Bugmy principles and/or the evidence giving rise to the application of those principles.' 'Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the applicant's deprived childhood contributed to the cause of his offending or otherwise reduced his moral culpability."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because, although the sentencing judge accepted that the Bugmy principles were enlivened, he failed to give meaningful consideration to the significance of the applicant's profound childhood deprivation, including whether it contributed to the offending or reduced moral culpability and moderated the weight to be given to deterrence. On re-sentence, the Court accepted that the applicant's deprived childhood substantially caused his chronic drug addiction and recidivism, reduced his moral culpability, and required substantial weight to be given to rehabilitation, resulting in a lower sentence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence imposed at first instance quashed; applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Allow the appeal.' 'Quash the sentence imposed at first instance and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to a term of imprisonment for 5 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months commencing on 11 April 2020 and expiring on 10 July 2023 and a balance of term of...