Shine v R [2016] NSWCCA 149

Shine v R [2016] NSWCCA 149

The sentencing judge failed to adequately consider and explain the effect of mental illness on the applicant's moral culpability, failed to provide reasons for rejecting the psychiatrist's finding regarding capacity to recognize wrongdoing, and failed to consider the burden of incarceration and rehabilitation prospects. The utilitarian discount for the guilty plea should be 25% as the delay was attributable to the applicant's mental illness. The sentence was manifestly excessive and should be reduced.

Parties
Applicant: Stephen Shine; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed, sentence quashed, applicant re-sentenced to 9 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Delay in Entering Guilty Plea, Utilitarian Discount, Mental Illness, Reasons for Rejecting Psychiatric Evidence, Moral Culpability, Effect of Mental Illness on Incarceration, Prospects of Rehabilitation, Manifest Excessiveness of Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Delay in Entering Guilty Plea Utilitarian Discount Mental Illness Reasons for Rejecting Psychiatric Evidence Moral Culpability Effect of Mental Illness on Incarceration +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Shine

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in allowing only a 20% discount for the guilty plea
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding, contrary to psychiatric evidence, that the applicant knew his actions were wrong
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider the applicant's mental illness in reducing the sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge failed to adequately consider and explain the effect of mental illness on the applicant's moral culpability, failed to provide reasons for rejecting the psychiatrist's finding regarding capacity to recognize wrongdoing, and failed to consider the burden of incarceration and rehabilitation prospects. The utilitarian discount for the guilty plea should be 25% as the delay was attributable to the applicant's mental illness. The sentence was manifestly excessive and should be reduced.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, sentence quashed, applicant re-sentenced to 9 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.

Orders

  • Grant the applicant leave to appeal.
  • Allow the appeal.