Legal Research
Cases
DG v The King

DG v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 137 5 September 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: DG v R [2025] NSWCCA 137
Hearing dates: 27 June 2025
Date of orders: 5 September 2025
Decision date: 05 September 2025
Before: Bell CJ at [1];
Payne JA at [2];
N Adams J at [3].
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal is granted.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeals — appeal against sentence — intentionally causing grievous bodily harm to 10-week-old daughter — life threatening injuries — whether sentencing judge erred by failing to consider whether a finding of reduced moral culpability meant the applicant was a suitable vehicle for general deterrence — approach to application of Bugmy principles — sentencing person with a profoundly deprived childhood for a very serious violent offence
SENTENCING — re-sentencing on appeal — objective seriousness and moral culpability separate but related concepts — departing from findings of sentencing judge — where the Court will not impose a more severe sentence — instinctive synthesis — appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 23A, 33(1)(b), 52B
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(2)(eb), 44(2)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1)(c), 6
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Ahmad v R [2021] NSWCCA 30
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Camilleri v R [2023] NSWCCA 106; 308 A Crim R 52
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
DL v The Queen (2018) 265 CLR 215; [2018] HCA 32
DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
Harris v R [2021] NSWCCA 322
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
LN v R [2020] NSWCCA 131
LS v R [2020] NSWCCA 27
Lupton v R [2024] NSWCCA 29
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73
Parente v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 633; [2017] NSWCCA 284
Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions (1992) 28 NSWLR 282
Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26
R v Abrahams [2013] NSWSC 952
R v Bui [2025] NSWCCA 114
R v DG [2024] NSWDC 194
R v Eaton [2023] NSWCCA 125; 308 a Crim R 465
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Lolesio [2014] NSWCCA 219
R v MB [2017] NSWSC 619
R v MJ [2023] NSWCCA 306
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 297
Rv SO [2014] ACTSC 316
R v White [2025] NSWCCA 111
RO v R [2019] NSWCCA 183
Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247; 275 A Crim R…

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 DG v The King

Details

AGLC: DG v The King [2025] NSWCCA 137
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 137
Decision Date: 05 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DG v The King, the appellant sought to appeal against the sentence imposed for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm to their 10-week-old daughter, resulting in life-threatening injuries. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentencing judge erred by not considering if the applicant's reduced moral culpability due to a profoundly deprived childhood meant they were unsuitable for general deterrence. The Court was also required to assess the approach taken by the sentencing judge in applying the principles set out in Bugmy v The Queen.

The High Court found that the sentencing judge did not err in their approach. The Court emphasised that objective seriousness and moral culpability are separate but related concepts in sentencing. It was noted that the Court will not impose a more severe sentence than the one already imposed by the sentencing judge unless there is a clear error in the application of legal principles. The Court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately synthesised the relevant considerations, including the objective seriousness of the crime and the appellant's personal circumstances, leading to an appropriate sentence. The appeal was dismissed as there was no error in the application of the Bugmy principles or in the consideration of the appellant's profoundly deprived childhood.

The Court concluded that the sentencing judge's approach was correct and that the sentence imposed was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence remained in place. This decision highlights the importance of considering both objective seriousness and moral culpability in sentencing, particularly for individuals with profoundly deprived backgrounds who commit serious violent offences.

Orders