Davies J at [1]; N Adams J at [6]; Yehia J at [178].
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted. (2) Appeal allowed. (3) The aggregate sentence imposed by Judge McGuire SC on 20 November 2023 is quashed. In lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 6 years and 6 months to commence on 19 October 2022 and to expire on 18 April 2029 with a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months to commence on 19 October 2022 and to expire on 18 January 2027. (4) The applicant is referred to the Drug Court for determination of whether he should be the subject of a Compulsory Drug Treatment Order.
Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeal – appeal against sentence – error in having regard to Form 1 in assessment of objective seriousness for principal offences – where error conceded - resentence
Counsel: C Wasley (Applicant) J Styles (Respondent)
Solicitors: Caulfield Solicitors (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):
2020/00106551
Publication Restriction:
Nil.
Decision under appeal:
Court or Tribunal:
District Court
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
22 September 2023
Before:
McGuire SC DCJ
File Number(s):
2020/00106551
JUDGMENT
DAVIES J: I agree with N Adams J for the reasons her Honour gives. I wish, however, to emphasise what her Honour said at [135_Ref190246888] to [139_Ref190246900] concerning the Crown’s decision to place 12 of the 16 charges on Form 1 documents.
As…
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 Roulstone v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Roulstone v The King [2025] NSWCCA 7
Case
[2025] NSWCCA 7
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Roulstone versus The King, the defendant sought an appeal against the sentence imposed by the court. The dispute centred on the assessment of the objective seriousness of the principal offences for which Roulstone was convicted, particularly in relation to the court's consideration of Form 1. This form is a tool used in Australian sentencing to assess the severity of an offence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the court was tasked with determining whether the error in considering Form 1 warranted a re-sentencing of Roulstone.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the error in the sentencing process, specifically the inappropriate consideration of Form 1, was significant enough to warrant a re-sentencing of Roulstone. The court needed to consider the extent to which this error impacted the final sentence and whether it was a material error that affected the overall fairness and appropriateness of the sentence. The court was also required to examine the principle of proportionality in sentencing and whether the error led to a sentence that was disproportionate to the seriousness of the crimes committed.
The High Court found that the error in considering Form 1 was indeed material and had influenced the sentencing. The court acknowledged that the error was conceded by the prosecution, which meant that it was an admitted mistake that had affected the outcome of the sentencing. The court held that the inappropriate consideration of Form 1 was a significant error that impacted the assessment of the objective seriousness of the principal offences. Consequently, the court concluded that Roulstone's sentence needed to be reconsidered. The court ordered a re-sentencing of Roulstone, ensuring that the sentencing process would be conducted without the aforementioned error, thereby providing a fair and appropriate sentence for the crimes committed.