Bell CJ at [1]; Payne JA at [153]; N Adams J at [154].
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
SENTENCING – Crown appeal against sentence – where offender deployed taser in course of responsibilities as police officer – where offender convicted of manslaughter – non-custodial sentence for manslaughter conviction – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – whether sentence imposed unreasonable or plainly unjust – where a number of grounds raised, on proper analysis, went only to weight given to role of general deterrence and assessment of objective seriousness – strong subjective circumstances – honest error of judgement – no ongoing risk posed to the community – no malice – extra-curial punishment – loss of employment – inability to continue to reside in local community – sentence lenient but not manifestly inadequate – where no relevant error in sentencing disclosed
SENTENCING – Crown appeal against sentence – Court of Criminal Appeal’s discretion to intervene – s 5D(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – residual discretion – purposes of Crown appeals against sentence – unusual circumstances of offending – inapt vehicle for laying down general principles – inapt vehicle for ensuring consistency in sentencing – where offender’s health deteriorated since sentence – where offender already undertaken not insubstantial part of sentence imposed – residual discretion not exercised in favour of Crown
[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 White
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v White [2025] NSWCCA 111
Case
[2025] NSWCCA 111
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v White, the appellant, a former police officer, was convicted of manslaughter following the deployment of a taser, which led to the death of an individual. The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate and unreasonable. The sentence in question was a non-custodial term, which was considered lenient given the gravity of the offence and the appellant's role as a police officer. The legal issues before the court involved whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, unreasonable or plainly unjust, and whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had the discretion to intervene.
The court examined the arguments raised by the Crown, focusing on the weight given to general deterrence and the assessment of objective seriousness. While the appellant's role as a police officer and the subjective circumstances of an honest error of judgment were acknowledged, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The appellant's extra-curial punishment, including loss of employment and the inability to reside in the local community, were considered significant factors. Additionally, there was no ongoing risk to the community, and the appellant showed no malice. The court concluded that the sentence, while lenient, was not manifestly inadequate or unreasonable.
The court also addressed the Crown's appeal concerning the Court of Criminal Appeal’s discretion to intervene under section 5D(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). The court noted that the unusual circumstances of the offending made it an inapt vehicle for laying down general principles or ensuring consistency in sentencing. Given the appellant's deteriorating health since the sentence was imposed and the fact that he had already served a substantial part of the sentence, the court decided not to exercise its residual discretion in favour of the Crown.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the Crown’s appeal against sentence. The court found no relevant error in sentencing and affirmed the original sentence as appropriate under the circumstances.