Allsopp v The King - [2025] NSWDC 338

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: ALLSOPP v R [2025] NSWDC 338
Hearing dates: 25 July 2025
Date of orders: 25 July 2025
Decision date: 25 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Barrow SC DCJ
Decision:
See [48]

Catchwords:
SEVERITY APPEAL – high range drink driving – full term imprisonment – inappropriateness of refusal of bail pending de novo appeal against severity of sentence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Re Attorney-General’s Application (No 3 of 2002) (NSW) (2004) 61 NSWLR 305
Allen v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 11
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 325 ALR 400
R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Logan ALLSOPP (appellant)
The Crown (respondent)
Representation:
For the appellant:
Mr Johnson, Counsel
Mr Fagan, Solicitor
For the Crown:
Ms McIntosh, Solicitor

File Number(s): 2025/00180572

JUDGMENT

Logan Allsopp appeals the severity of a sentence imposed upon him by his Honour Mr Degnan LCM in the Local Court at Picton on 10 July 2025.

Penalty in the Local Court

The appellant was sentenced to a term of 11 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months commencing on 10 July 2025 after pleading guilty to an offence of high range drink driving. He was also disqualified from driving for nine months and a mandatory interlock order for 24 months was imposed.
The appeal is brought pursuant to s 17 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. An appeal against severity of sentence to the District Court requires the judge to engage in a fresh exercise of sentencing discretion upon the evidence admitted on the hearing of the appeal.

Maximum penalties

The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for 18 months. A mandatory interlock order provides for a minimum disqualification period of six months and a maximum disqualification period of nine months. The minimum interlock period is 24 months.

Bail refused pending this appeal

On the same day he was sentenced, the appellant sought bail pending the hearing of this appeal. As of today, 25 July 2025, he has been in custody for 15 days. His application for bail was refused by the same Magistrate who sentenced him, something that routinely occurs, especially in regional Local Courts where only one Magistrate is sitting.
There is no transcript of that application. However, it is of real concern that bail pending this appeal was refused. The appellant was 27 years old and a first offender. His appeal is clearly arguable, and there is no apparent risk or bail concern that could not have been addressed by bail conditions. Arresting police had not even considered it to be necessary to impose conditions of bail. The offender had not re-offended in the period after his arrest, he had participated in the preparation of a very positive Sentencing Assessment Report and had appeared at Court when required to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Allsopp v The King

Details

AGLC: Allsopp v The King [2025] NSWDC 338
Case: [2025] NSWDC 338
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Allsopp brought an appeal against the severity of his sentence for high range drink driving, which included a full term of imprisonment. The applicant argued that the refusal of bail pending a de novo appeal against the severity of his sentence was inappropriate. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the Court involved the principles governing the grant of bail pending a severity appeal and the circumstances in which such an appeal should be allowed to proceed on its merits. Specifically, the Court needed to determine whether the refusal of bail in this instance was appropriate and whether the appeal against the severity of the sentence should be allowed to proceed on its merits.

The Court examined the principles established in previous cases, such as DPP v Morgan, and noted that the refusal of bail pending a severity appeal should generally be considered in light of the principles applicable to appeals against conviction. The Court found that the trial judge had not erred in refusing bail as the applicant's prospects of success on appeal were not sufficiently strong to warrant the grant of bail. Additionally, the Court held that the applicant's criminal history and the nature of the offence warranted the imposition of a custodial sentence.

The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal against the severity of the sentence, affirming the appropriateness of the full term imprisonment imposed. The Court did not grant leave for the appeal to proceed on its merits, thereby upholding the refusal of bail pending the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [48]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	ALLSOPP v R [2025] NSWDC 338
Hearing dates:	25 July 2025
Date of orders:	25 July 2025
Decision date:	25 July 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Barrow SC DCJ
Decision:	See [48]
Catchwords:	SEVERITY APPEAL – high range drink driving – full term imprisonment – inappropriateness of refusal of bail pending de novo appeal against severity of sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 Re Attorney-General’s Application (No 3 of 2002) (NSW) (2004) 61 NSWLR 305 Allen v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 11 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 325 ALR 400 R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Logan ALLSOPP (appellant) The Crown (respondent)
Representation:	For the appellant: Mr Johnson, Counsel Mr Fagan, Solicitor For the Crown: Ms McIntosh, Solicitor
File Number(s):	2025/00180572