(2) The sentence imposed on the applicant in the District Court on 15 December 2022 is quashed. In lieu thereof impose a sentence of 7 years and 6 months comprising a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months and a balance of term of 3 years. The sentence is to commence on 19 February 2021. The non-parole period is to expire on 18 August 2025. The total sentence is due to expire on 18 August 2028.
(3) The earliest date on which the applicant may be released is 18 August 2025
Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal – appeal against sentence – whether sentencing judge erred in failing to consider the effect of the applicant’s youth on the offending – relevance of youth – applicant’s age – multiple property and violence offences – strong subjective case – disadvantaged upbringing – where the applicant had received “little caregiver supervision during adolescence to positive[ly] guide his social and moral development” – Bugmy principles enlivened to a significant extent – youth and childhood deprivation are separate considerations – totality – complex sentencing exercise – instinctive synthesis – consideration of the Henry guideline – “indicia of adult behaviour” an unhelpful appellation – manifest excess – error found – sentencing discretion exercised afresh – re-sentence
[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 Carr v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Carr v The King [2024] NSWCCA 103
Case
[2024] NSWCCA 103
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the appellant, Carr, appealed against his sentence for multiple property and violence offences. The appeal focused on the sentencing judge’s failure to adequately consider the effect of the appellant's youth on his offending behaviour. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The legal issues before the Court included whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider the effect of the appellant's youth on his offending, and whether the judge should have given proper weight to the appellant's disadvantaged upbringing. The Court examined whether youth and childhood deprivation should be considered separately in the sentencing process, and if the judge should have taken into account the Bugmy principles, which emphasize the need to consider the age of the offender in determining the appropriate sentence.
The Court held that the sentencing judge erred in not considering the effect of the appellant's youth on his offending. The Court found that the appellant's age and disadvantaged upbringing were significant factors that should have been given proper weight. The Court emphasised that youth and childhood deprivation are separate considerations in the sentencing process. The Court also noted that the judge should have considered the totality of the circumstances and exercised their discretion in light of the Henry guideline. The Court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive and exercised its discretion to re-sentence the appellant. The Court ultimately ordered a re-sentencing hearing to ensure that the appellant's youth and disadvantaged upbringing were properly considered.