Toman v R [2018] NSWCCA 51

Toman v R [2018] NSWCCA 51

The sentencing judge did not err in declining to accept the psychiatrists' opinions that the applicant's schizophrenia impaired his decision-making in relation to the offences. The agreed facts showed a high degree of preparation and planning, including obtaining and using a niqab disguise, acting with a co-offender, use of vehicles, steps to mislead police about the borrowed vehicle, and pawning stolen items. That material provided a legitimate basis for the judge to find difficulty reconciling the expert opinions with the applicant's conduct, and the findings made were open on the material before him.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['break Enter and Steal' 'face Disguised With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'mental Illness and Sentencing' 'expert Psychiatric Evidence' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break Enter and Steal' 'face Disguised With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'mental Illness and Sentencing' 'expert Psychiatric Evidence' 'leave to Appeal Against 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by rejecting the unchallenged opinions of Dr Nielssen and Dr Furst that the applicant's mental condition impeded his capacity to make logical decisions." "Whether the judge's finding of clear planning in the offences provided a legitimate basis to reject the psychiatric opinions about impaired decision-making."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in declining to accept the psychiatrists' opinions that the applicant's schizophrenia impaired his decision-making in relation to the offences. The agreed facts showed a high degree of preparation and planning, including obtaining and using a niqab disguise, acting with a co-offender, use of vehicles, steps to mislead police about the borrowed vehicle, and pawning stolen items. That material provided a legitimate basis for the judge to find difficulty reconciling the expert opinions with the applicant's conduct, and the findings made were open on the material before him.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']