O’Brien v R [2022] NSWCCA 234

O’Brien v R [2022] NSWCCA 234

Leave to appeal was refused because the hardship ground contradicted an explicit and repeated concession made at sentence, there was no evidence that the applicant's incarceration caused exceptional hardship to his family, and the sentencing judge had in any event taken the family circumstances into account in the sentencing synthesis. The manifest excess ground was not arguable because the sentence was justified by the multiple vulnerable victims, substantial financial amounts, serious consequences of the offending, the heartlessness of the criminal enterprise, and the applicant's significant similar criminal antecedents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, From a District Court of NSW Sentence Imposed on 17 December 2021
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['dishonestly Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception' 'manifest Excess' 'third Party Hardship' 'exceptional Hardship' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['dishonestly Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception' 'manifest Excess' 'third Party Hardship' 'exceptional Hardship' 'form 1 Offences']

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 of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, From a District Court of NSW Sentence Imposed on 17 December 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the effect of the applicant's sentence on his family or dependants, including whether hardship to third parties needed to be exceptional to be taken into account." 'Whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the hardship ground contradicted an explicit and repeated concession made at sentence, there was no evidence that the applicant's incarceration caused exceptional hardship to his family, and the sentencing judge had in any event taken the family circumstances into account in the sentencing synthesis. The manifest excess ground was not arguable because the sentence was justified by the multiple vulnerable victims, substantial financial amounts, serious consequences of the offending, the heartlessness of the criminal enterprise, and the applicant's significant similar criminal antecedents.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

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