Harrison CJ at CL at [1]; Hamill J at [2]; Chen J at [34]
Decision:
(1) Allow the appeal.
(2) Quash the sentence imposed on the respondent on 1 December 2023 and in lieu thereof impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 6 years, with a non-parole period of 4 years, commencing 29 November 2023. The respondent will become eligible to be released on parole on 28 November 2027. The sentence will expire on 28 November 2029.
(3) Order, pursuant to s 12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), that the offences be recorded on the respondent’s criminal record as domestic violence offences.
Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – By Crown against inadequacy – Where respondent has pleaded guilty to 14 domestic violence offences against former de-facto partner – Where sentencing judge made guarded findings regarding the respondent’s prospects of rehabilitation – Whether sentencing judge paid sufficient regard to the sentencing principles of specific deterrence and community protection - Whether sentencing judge engaged in “double counting” in regard to the promotion of the respondent’s prospects of rehabilitation – Manifestly inadequate sentence established – Respondent resentenced
[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 R v Stephens
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Stephens [2024] NSWCCA 170
Case
[2024] NSWCCA 170
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in R v Stephens involved the Crown seeking to challenge the adequacy of a sentence imposed by a lower court. The respondent, Stephens, had pleaded guilty to 14 counts of domestic violence against his former de-facto partner. The court was tasked with examining whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the principles of specific deterrence and community protection, as well as whether there was an error in the way the judge approached the sentencing objectives.
The legal issues before the court were centred on whether the sentencing judge sufficiently acknowledged the need for specific deterrence and community protection in light of the respondent's history of domestic violence. Additionally, the court had to determine if the sentencing judge's approach to promoting the respondent's rehabilitation amounted to "double counting," thereby potentially diminishing the weight given to other sentencing objectives. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed.
The court found that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently consider the principles of specific deterrence and community protection. The judge's focus appeared to be predominantly on the respondent's prospects of rehabilitation, which may have inadvertently undervalued other critical sentencing objectives. The court also determined that there was an instance of "double counting" in the sentencing process, where the promotion of rehabilitation was given undue emphasis, thereby reducing the impact of other objectives. Consequently, the sentence was deemed manifestly inadequate. The respondent was resentenced, reflecting a more balanced consideration of all relevant sentencing principles.