Teece v R [2022] NSWCCA 265

Teece v R [2022] NSWCCA 265

The appeal was dismissed because no sentencing error was established. The applicant was the instigator and organiser of a planned and serious act of intimidation with a firearm, received no utilitarian discount and showed no remorse. The sentencing judge's treatment of remorse, rehabilitation, Attention Deficit Disorder and drug abuse involved evaluative judgments open on the evidence, and the remarks did not amount to a finding that the applicant knew the firearm was loaded. The sentence was within range. When the co-offender's 25% plea discount was removed, the difference between the starting points for the shared offence was 1 year 9 months, which was open given the differences in...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal, Including Out of Time; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal, including out of time, granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manifest Excess' 'parity' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' 'misapplication of Sentencing Principle' 'error in Fact Finding' 'co Offenders Sentenced Separately' 'remorse and Rehabilitation' 'drug Addiction and Attention Deficit Disorder as Subjective Factors']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manifest Excess' 'parity' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' 'misapplication of Sentencing Principle' 'error in Fact Finding' 'co Offenders Sentenced Separately' 'remorse and Rehabilitation' 'drug Addiction and Attention Deficit Disorder as Subjective Factors']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal, Including Out of Time; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had an objectively justifiable sense of grievance by reason of disparity between his sentence and the sentence imposed on his co-offender.' 'Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by placing undue weight on lack of remorse and its impact on rehabilitation prospects.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's Attention Deficit Disorder and drug abuse as subjective mitigating factors." 'Whether the sentencing judge made an unsupported aggravating finding that the applicant knew the firearm was loaded.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because no sentencing error was established. The applicant was the instigator and organiser of a planned and serious act of intimidation with a firearm, received no utilitarian discount and showed no remorse. The sentencing judge's treatment of remorse, rehabilitation, Attention Deficit Disorder and drug abuse involved evaluative judgments open on the evidence, and the remarks did not amount to a finding that the applicant knew the firearm was loaded. The sentence was within range. When the co-offender's 25% plea discount was removed, the difference between the starting points for the shared offence was 1 year 9 months, which was open given the differences in...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal, including out of time, granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal, including out of time, granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']