Veale v R [2022] NSWCCA 154

Veale v R [2022] NSWCCA 154

The sentencing judge mistakenly believed that the consequence of the sentences, the non-parole period and the release recommendation would be that the applicant was released to parole on 15 March 2022. That erroneous belief was fundamental to the sentencing exercise because the non-parole period was fixed on the basis that the applicant had already spent sufficient time in custody and would then spend 2 years on parole. The appeal was therefore allowed on ground 1. On resentencing, the Court found a causal connection between the applicant's schizoaffective disorder and the offending, reducing criminality, moral culpability and the weight given to specific and general deterrence. The...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Resentencing in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave granted; appeal allowed on ground 1; District Court sentences quashed; appellant resentenced; recognizance release order made.
Legal Topics
['commonwealth Offences' 'federal Parole Provisions' 'non Parole Period' 'recognizance Release Order' 'mental Illness and Sentencing' 'carriage Service Offences' 'commonwealth Child Sex Offence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['commonwealth Offences' 'federal Parole Provisions' 'non Parole Period' 'recognizance Release Order' 'mental Illness and Sentencing' 'carriage Service Offences' 'commonwealth Child Sex Offence']

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge proceeded on a mistaken belief as to the operation of the Commonwealth parole provisions in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).' 'Whether the sentencing judge believed the effect of the sentences and non-parole period would be that the applicant was released to parole on the sentencing date.' 'Whether the erroneous belief was fundamental to the sentencing exercise and required resentencing.' "Whether the applicant's mental illness had a causal connection with the offending and reduced criminality and moral culpability." 'Whether, on resentencing, the aggregate sentence required a recognizance release order rather than a non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge mistakenly believed that the consequence of the sentences, the non-parole period and the release recommendation would be that the applicant was released to parole on 15 March 2022. That erroneous belief was fundamental to the sentencing exercise because the non-parole period was fixed on the basis that the applicant had already spent sufficient time in custody and would then spend 2 years on parole. The appeal was therefore allowed on ground 1. On resentencing, the Court found a causal connection between the applicant's schizoaffective disorder and the offending, reducing criminality, moral culpability and the weight given to specific and general deterrence. The...

Court Disposition

Leave granted; appeal allowed on ground 1; District Court sentences quashed; appellant resentenced; recognizance release order made.

Orders

  • ['Grant the appellant leave to appeal from the sentences imposed by the District Court on 15 March 2022.' 'Allow the appeal on ground 1.' 'Quash the sentences imposed by the District Court on 15 March 2022.' 'In respect of count 2, impose a term of imprisonment of 3 years commencing on 16 October 2020 and expiring...