McCosker v R [2022] NSWCCA 127

McCosker v R [2022] NSWCCA 127

It was open to the sentencing judge to find that the applicant and Mr Stone were equally culpable given the applicant's role in the offence, and therefore, imposing the same pre-discount sentence on both was justified. The evidence supported the finding regarding the time of death, and the ground alleging insufficient evidence was unduly technical and without merit. Leave to appeal was granted on the first three grounds but the appeal was dismissed as none were made out. Leave was refused on the fourth ground.

Parties
Applicant: Troy Lee McCosker; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted for grounds (1)-(3), refused for ground (4); appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeals Against Sentence, Parity Principle, Sentencing, Factual Findings on Sentence
Criminal Law Appeals Against Sentence Parity Principle Sentencing Factual Findings on Sentence

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Troy Lee McCosker

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was disparate with the sentence imposed on co-offender Mr Stone
  2. 2 Whether there was evidence to support the finding regarding the time of death after the second burning

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the sentencing judge to find that the applicant and Mr Stone were equally culpable given the applicant's role in the offence, and therefore, imposing the same pre-discount sentence on both was justified. The evidence supported the finding regarding the time of death, and the ground alleging insufficient evidence was unduly technical and without merit. Leave to appeal was granted on the first three grounds but the appeal was dismissed as none were made out. Leave was refused on the fourth ground.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted for grounds (1)-(3), refused for ground (4); appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted in respect of grounds (1), (2) and (3).
  • Leave refused in respect of ground (4).