Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Leal v R [2025] NSWCCA 92 Hearing dates: 5 May 2025 Date of orders: 16 June 2025 Decision date: 16 June 2025 Before: Harrison CJ at CL at [1]
Wright J at [2]
Huggett J at [3]Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal
(2) Dismiss the appeal
Catchwords: CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – pleas of guilty - whether the sentencing judge erred by discounting the aggregate sentence rather than the indicative sentences or whether the sentencing judge’s remarks are insufficient in disclosing how the discount was applied – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 33B(1)(a), 51B(1), 86(1)(b), 154A(1)(a), 195(1)(a)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 10A, 21A(2)(j), 53A(2)(b)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(c)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
Firearms Act 1966 (NSW), s 7A(1)
Road Rules 2014 (NSW), s 287(1)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 53(3)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Ibbotson (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 92
JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
Weiss v R [2020] NSWCCA 188
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Trevor Leal (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J Brock (Applicant)
B Costello (Respondent)
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00322008; 2022/00322017 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Criminal
- Citation:
Nil
- Date of Decision:
- 13 March 2024
- Before:
- Harris DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2022/00322008; 2022/00322017
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
Trevor Leal (the applicant) sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by Judge Harris on 13 March 2024 in the District Court of New South Wales.
The applicant was sentenced in relation to 13 offences committed on 27 October 2022. Four of those offences were committed to the District Court for sentence upon the applicant entering pleas of guilty in the Local Court. Nine of the offences were before the sentencing judge as related offences pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). One additional matter committed on 6 September 2022 was taken into account on a Form 1 document. All of the offences were committed while the applicant was on parole.
The sentencing judge imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months commencing on 27 March 2023 and expiring on 26 September 2030, with a non-parole period of 4 years…
Continue reading Leal v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Leal v The King [2025] NSWCCA 92
- Case
- [2025] NSWCCA 92
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the sentencing remarks and found that while the judge had considered the totality of the offending, there was no clear explanation as to how the discount was applied. The judge had mentioned an aggregate discount but did not specify how it related to the indicative sentences for each offence. The court held that the sentencing judge's remarks did not sufficiently articulate the process of applying the discount, which was necessary for proper judicial reasoning and transparency. The court also noted that the sentence, while severe, did not amount to being manifestly excessive given the nature and extent of the offending.
Ultimately, the court determined that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately disclose the method of applying the discount to the aggregate sentence, which undermined the transparency of the sentencing process. However, the court did not find the sentence to be manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, but the matter was remitted to the sentencing court for reconsideration with proper articulation of the discount application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.