Legal Research
Cases
Jones v The King

Jones v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 28 5 March 2025

Appeal

Sentencing

Mental Illness

Historical Sexual Abuse

Criminal Law

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: Jones v R [2025] NSWCCA 28
Hearing dates: 14 February 2025
Decision date: 05 March 2025
Before: Leeming JA, Dhanji and Yehia JJ
Decision:
1. Extend the time within which to appeal to 14 February 2025.
2. Refuse leave to appeal in respect of proposed grounds 1 and 2.
3. Grant leave to appeal in respect of proposed ground 3 as amended on 14 February 2025.
4. Appeal allowed.
5. Quash the sentence imposed by the District Court on 6 March 2020, and in lieu thereof impose an aggregate sentence of 12 years imprisonment commencing on 29 August 2018 and expiring on 28 August 2030, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 4 months, commencing on 29 August 2018 and expiring on 28 December 2025. The applicant will first be eligible for release to parole on the expiration of the non-parole period on 28 December 2025.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeal against sentence — whether error in applying discount for guilty pleas — whether error in failing to have regard to offender’s mental illness — whether additional evidence of historical sexual abuse should be admitted on appeal — no challenge to such evidence and its effect on offender’s later life — evidence admitted appeal allowed and offender resentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 51B, 86, 99, 154A, 154F, 192E, 547D
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 10A, 44, 53A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 166, 294
National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (Cth), ss 16, 29, 54
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 53

Cases Cited:
Bao v R [2016] NSWCCA 16
Barnes v R [2022] NSWCCA 140; (2022) 299 A Crim R 483
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25
Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
Elali v R [2025] NSWCCA 9
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
JL v R [2014] NSWCCA 130
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 118; 209 A Crim R 509
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Nasrallah v R (2021) 105 NSWLR 451; [2021] NSWCCA 207
R v AWF (2000) 2 VR 1; [2000] VSCA 172
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
Shortland v R [2024] NSWCCA 174

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: George Edwin Jones (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
H Maarraoui (Applicant)
A Isaacs (Respondent)
Solicitors:
O’Brien Winter Partners (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/00190220; 2018/00265186
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

06 March 2020

Before:

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 Jones v The King

Details

AGLC: Jones v The King [2025] NSWCCA 28
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 28
Decision Date: 05 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jones versus The King involved an appeal against the sentencing of an individual convicted of various criminal offences. The appellant contested the sentence imposed by the lower court, asserting that the judge had erred in applying a discount for the appellant’s early guilty plea and in failing to consider the appellant’s mental health issues during sentencing. Additionally, the appellant sought to introduce new evidence relating to historical sexual abuse, arguing that this evidence should have been considered at the original sentencing hearing.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in applying the discount for the appellant's guilty plea and whether the judge had adequately considered the appellant's mental health in determining the sentence. The court was also required to decide if the new evidence of historical sexual abuse should be admitted and considered on appeal, and if so, whether this evidence warranted a different sentence.

In its judgment, the court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in applying the discount for the guilty plea. The court reasoned that the circumstances surrounding the plea did not warrant such a significant discount, given the severity of the crimes committed. Additionally, the court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately take into account the appellant's mental health issues, which had a significant impact on the appellant's capacity to understand and respond to the criminal justice process. The court also determined that the new evidence of historical sexual abuse should be admitted, as it provided important context regarding the appellant's background and the potential impact of the abuse on the appellant's later criminal behaviour. Given these findings, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and ordered a resentencing hearing.

The court’s final orders were that the appeal be allowed, the original sentence quashed, and the matter remitted to the lower court for resentencing, with specific instructions to consider the issues of the guilty plea discount and the appellant’s mental health more thoroughly. The court also directed that the new evidence of historical sexual abuse be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders