SR v R [2024] NSWCCA 43

SR v R [2024] NSWCCA 43

The sentencing judge considered whether to make an intensive correction order but did not sufficiently engage with the statutory requirement that community safety be the paramount consideration. Given the finding that protection of the community did not loom large, the remarks did not explain how that factor informed or aligned with the decision that only full-time imprisonment was adequate. It was not reasonably possible to infer that community safety was treated as paramount, so the sentence was quashed and the applicant was resentenced to a 12-month intensive correction order with conditions for therapy and abstinence from alcohol.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court Sentence Imposed on 29 September 2022
Outcome
Appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to an intensive correction order for 12 months with additional conditions.
Legal Topics
['intensive Correction Orders' 'community Safety as Paramount Consideration' 'domestic Violence Offence' 'causing Grievous Bodily Harm Reckless as to Actual Bodily Harm' 'three Stage Sentencing Process']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['intensive Correction Orders' 'community Safety as Paramount Consideration' 'domestic Violence Offence' 'causing Grievous Bodily Harm Reckless as to Actual Bodily Harm' 'three Stage Sentencing Process']

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 Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court Sentence Imposed on 29 September 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by not following the three-stage process required by ss 7 and 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) when considering an intensive correction order.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to treat community safety as the paramount consideration when deciding whether to make an intensive correction order.' 'Whether the sentencing judge determined whether the applicant could be sentenced by way of intensive correction order before setting the length of the term of imprisonment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge considered whether to make an intensive correction order but did not sufficiently engage with the statutory requirement that community safety be the paramount consideration. Given the finding that protection of the community did not loom large, the remarks did not explain how that factor informed or aligned with the decision that only full-time imprisonment was adequate. It was not reasonably possible to infer that community safety was treated as paramount, so the sentence was quashed and the applicant was resentenced to a 12-month intensive correction order with conditions for therapy and abstinence from alcohol.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to an intensive correction order for 12 months with additional conditions.

Orders

  • ['The sentence imposed in the District Court on 29 September 2022 is quashed.' 'The applicant is sentenced to an intensive correction order for a period of 12 months to date from 26 March 2024 and expire on 25 March 2025.' 'The applicant is to continue to receive therapy from Dr Vu as frequently as Dr Vu advises.'...