O'Hanlon v R (Cth)

Link copied
Case Copied 42 min read

Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: O’Hanlon v R (Cth) [2025] NSWCCA 118
Hearing dates: 6 June 2025
Date of orders: 11 August 2025
Decision date: 11 August 2025
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1];
Ierace J at [2];
Coleman J at [3]
Decision:

(1)   Leave to appeal granted.

(2)   Appeal allowed.

(3) Set aside the sentences of imprisonment imposed on 27 November 2024 in the District Court of NSW and in lieu thereof impose the following sentences:

(i) For sequence 1 a term of imprisonment after the 25% discount of 9 months commencing on 27 November 2024 and expiring 26 August 2025.

(ii) For sequence 4 a term of imprisonment after the 25% discount of 9 months commencing 26 May 2025 and expiring 25 February 2026.

(iii) For sequence 16 a term of imprisonment after the 25% discount of 5 months commencing 26 August 2025 and expiring 25 January 2026.

(iv) For sequence 31 a term of imprisonment after the 25% discount of 5 months commencing 27 December 2025 and expiring 25 May 2026.

(4) Direct that the applicant be released forthwith upon entering into a recognizance, without security, in the sum of $500 and to comply with the following conditions for a period of 12 months from the date of these orders:

(i) To be of good behaviour.

(ii) To be supervised by Community Corrections for so long as that service deems it necessary and to obey all reasonable directions given by that service; and

(iii) To participate and maintain his participation in any programs for treatment required and/or facilitated by Community Corrections for alcohol and other drugs and/or mental health for as long as that service deems necessary.

(5) For sequence 21 the Community Corrections order made by Smith DCJ on 27 November 2024, commencing on that day and expiring on 26 November 2025 remains in place.

(6) Pursuant to s 21B of the Crimes Act the applicant make reparation to the Commonwealth in the sum of $16,226.89.

(7) Direct that within 48 hours of his release the applicant is to report to the Community Corrections Office at Orange, or such other location as agreed with Community Corrections.

Catchwords:

CRIME – SENTENCE – appeal against sentence - dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception – services Australia – relief payments - failure to place evidence before the court relevant to the applicant’s subjective circumstances – where sentencing judge only has a sentencing assessment report before them – where new material goes to the applicant’s attempt to seek rehabilitation – background of disadvantage – Bugmy principles – sentence quashed – resentence - Recognizance Release Order

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)

Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited:

AM v R [2024] NSWCCA 26

Barker v R [2024] NSWCCA 227

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 531; (2013) HCA 37

DPP v De La Rosa (2010) 79…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read O'Hanlon v R (Cth) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] NSWCCA 118
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of O'Hanlon v R (Cth) involved the appellant who was convicted of charges related to the dishonest acquisition of financial advantage through deception. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to review the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appellant had been found guilty of obtaining Centrelink payments to which he was not entitled. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate, particularly given that the sentencing judge did not have before them certain evidence relevant to the appellant’s subjective circumstances.

The court examined whether the sentencing judge's failure to consider evidence pertinent to the appellant’s background, including his disadvantaged circumstances, constituted a significant error. This consideration was crucial in determining whether the sentence was fair and just under the principles set out in Bugmy v R. The appellant argued that the omission of this evidence led to an inadequate understanding of his personal circumstances and his potential for rehabilitation. The court held that the sentencing judge’s decision to not consider this evidence resulted in a significant procedural error. As a result, the sentence was deemed to be manifestly excessive and inappropriate.

The High Court, therefore, quashed the sentence and ordered a resentencing of the appellant. The court recognised the importance of ensuring that all relevant information is considered in the sentencing process, particularly when it relates to the individual's background and the potential for rehabilitation. The final orders included a Recognizance Release Order, allowing the appellant to be released on bail pending the resentencing.

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.