Legal Research
Cases
Denniss v The King

Denniss v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 110 30 July 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Denniss v R [2025] NSWCCA 110
Hearing dates: 25 June 2025
Date of orders: 30 July 2025
Decision date: 30 July 2025
Before: Adamson JA at [1];
Garling J at [31];
Sweeney J at [32]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Allow the appeal.
(3) Quash the sentence imposed by Judge Harris on 15 March 2024 and sentence the applicant to a non-parole period of 6 years imprisonment, with an additional term of 3 years imprisonment, making a total sentence of 9 years imprisonment, to date from 30 August 2022. The non-parole period will expire on 29 August 2028, and the head sentence on 29 August 2031.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Assistance to authorities – Whether sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant’s disclosure to the police immediately after the subject offence as evidence of assistance to authorities and as evidence of remorse – Discount under s 23 Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW) – Appeal allowed – Applicant resentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33(1)(b)
Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 23

Cases Cited:
Ahmad v R [2021] NSWCCA 30
Anderson v R [2019] NSWCCA 256
CMB v Attorney General for the State of New South Wales [2015] HCA 9; (2015) 256 CLR 3
Hamdan v R [2023] NSWCCA 80
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; (2014) 252 CLR 601
McKinley v R [2022] NSWCCA 14
Noonan v R [2020] NSWCCA 346
R v Burke [2002] NSWCCA 353
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v SS (2021) 104 NSWLR 454; [2021] NSWCCA 56
Soars v R [2024] NSWCCA 218
Thewlis v R [2008] NSWCCA 176; (2008) 186 A Crim R 279
Tohifolau v R [2018] NSWCCA 283
White v R [2016] NSWCCA 190; (2016) 261 A Crim R 302
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; (2012) 223 A Crim R 460

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Joshua Dennis (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
C O’Neill (Applicant)
F Sullivan (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid (NSW) (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/00258096
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

15 March 2024

Before:

Harris DCJ

File Number(s):

2022/00258096

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Joshua Denniss, the applicant, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to one offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). On 15 March 2024, her Honour Judge Harris, after allowing the applicant a 25% discount for his plea of guilty, imposed a sentence of 10 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years imprisonment, commencing on 30 August 2022.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the…

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 Denniss v The King

Details

AGLC: Denniss v The King [2025] NSWCCA 110
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 110
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Denniss v The King involved an appeal by the applicant against the sentence imposed following a conviction for certain criminal offences. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately consider the assistance provided to the police immediately after the offence as evidence of remorse and cooperation. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was asked to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in not applying a discount for the applicant's early disclosure and cooperation under section 23 of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW). The court had to assess whether the sentencing judge's failure to consider this aspect of the applicant's conduct was a material error that warranted an appeal and a potential resentencing.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the law in relation to the discount for early cooperation and remorse. The applicant argued that the failure to consider the immediate disclosure and cooperation amounted to a material error in the sentencing process, warranting a review and potential resentencing. The court needed to determine whether the sentencing judge's oversight was indeed an error of law that affected the sentence imposed. It was necessary to consider the statutory provisions and the jurisprudence regarding the appropriate circumstances for applying a discount under section 23 of the Act.

In allowing the appeal, the court found that the sentencing judge had failed to consider the applicant's early disclosure and cooperation, which was a material error. The court concluded that the discount under section 23 should have been applied, and that this oversight warranted a resentencing. The court emphasised the importance of recognising and appropriately considering evidence of remorse and cooperation as part of the sentencing process. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the applicant was to be resentenced in light of the court's findings.

Orders