Edgar v The King - [2025] VSCA 223

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0061

JOSHUA EDGAR	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and BOYCE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 September 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 223
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Edgar [2025] VCC 234 (Judge Palmer)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Recklessly causing injury, false imprisonment and robbery – Victim transgender sex worker – Unprovoked attack – Aggregate sentence of two years’ imprisonment with conditioned community correction order of two years’ duration – Whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to Bugmy principles – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; DPP v Herrmann (2021) 290 A Crim R 110 considered.

---

Counsel
Applicant		Mr T Bell
Respondent		Ms S Lenthall
Solicitors
Applicant	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
Respondent	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BOYCE JA:

Introduction

On 5 June 2024, the applicant, then aged 29 years,[1] pleaded guilty before a judge in the County Court to recklessly causing injury (charge 1),[2] false imprisonment (charge 2)[3] and robbery (charge 3),[4] committed against a transgender sex worker, ‘SM’, aged 35 years,[5] in the early hours of 22 January 2023.
[1]His date of birth is 22 April 1993.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 18. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
[3]A common law offence. By virtue of s 320 of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
[4]Crimes Act 1958, s 75. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.
[5]SM was born in March 1987.
Following a plea in mitigation conducted over two days (18 September 2024 and 13 February 2025), on 6 March 2025 the judge sentenced the applicant to an aggregate sentence of two years’ imprisonment, in combination with a community correction order (‘CCO’) of two years’ duration, with a condition that the applicant perform 150 hours of unpaid community work over that two years. (Other conditions related to undergoing assessment and treatment for drug abuse and dependency, and for psychological, neuropsychological and psychiatric conditions.) The judge also directed that 387 days’ pre-sentence detention be reckoned as a period of imprisonment already served under the sentence.[6]
[6]As to the relevance of that, see [47] below.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on two grounds:
1The learned sentencing judge erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the principles set out in Bugmy v The Queen,^[[7]] specifically in mitigation of moral culpability and specific deterrence
2The aggregate term of imprisonment was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.
[7]Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 (‘Bugmy’).
We consider that neither ground has substance. Leave to appeal should be refused.

The offending

In his reasons for sentence, the judge described the applicant’s offending as follows:
[1][O]n 22 January 2023, at around 2 am, [the applicant] started a text conversation…

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 Edgar v The King

Details

AGLC: Edgar v The King [2025] VSCA 223
Case: [2025] VSCA 223
Decision Date: 16 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Edgar v The King involved the appellant, Edgar, who was convicted of recklessly causing injury, false imprisonment, and robbery. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, which was an aggregate term of two years’ imprisonment with a conditioned community correction order of two years. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence, specifically whether the sentencing judge had given insufficient consideration to the principles articulated in Bugmy v The Queen, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had appropriately applied the principles of Bugmy v The Queen, which emphasised the importance of considering the unique circumstances of Indigenous offenders, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence did not adequately account for his Indigenous background and the societal disadvantages he faced, and that it was disproportionately severe in light of the circumstances of the offence and his personal background.

The court determined that the sentencing judge had indeed considered the appellant’s Indigenous background, but held that the weight given to these factors was insufficient. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it appropriately reflected the gravity of the offences committed. The court noted that while the offences were serious, they did not warrant a custodial sentence of such length, but acknowledged that the court had discretion in setting the appropriate punishment. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No specific final orders were made in the judgment, as the appeal was dismissed without altering the original sentence. The court's decision emphasised the need for sentencing judges to meticulously weigh all relevant factors, including those pertinent to Indigenous defendants, in crafting a sentence that is both fair and proportionate to the crime committed.

Orders