Legal Research
Cases
Sampson v The King

Sampson v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 25 21 March 2025

Appeal

Sentencing

Objective Seriousness

Mental Health Issues

General Deterrence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sampson v R [2025] NSWCCA 25
Hearing dates: 21 February 2025
Date of orders: 21 March 2025
Decision date: 21 March 2025
Before: Davies J at [1]
Dhanji J at [120]
Huggett J at [121]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal allowed.
(3) Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 13 December 2023.
(4) In lieu, taking into account the matter on the Form 1, sentence the appellant to a non-parole period of 2 years 8 months commencing 9 September 2022 and expiring 8 May 2025 with a balance of term of 1 year 10 months expiring 8 February 2027.
(5) The applicant is first eligible for parole on 8 May 2025.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm at a super call-over – where the applicant struck the victim in the eye causing permanent damage – where the sentencing judge combined discounts under ss 22A and 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 – whether the sentencing judge erred in rounding down the discount to even months – where the rounding down of the discount reduced the discount – where the sentencing judge was obliged to provide the stipulated discount in s 25D – ground of appeal upheld – where it was still necessary to resentence the applicant – error not an arithmetical or date error
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – objective seriousness – whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing objective seriousness – where the onus was on the applicant to show that a lack of planning should be a mitigating factor – where the offence was typified by jealousy – where there was a history of domestic violence – where the lack of planning was insignificant – ground rejected
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – where the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and alcohol/substance abuse disorder – where submission made that applicant was not a suitable vehicle for general deterrence - where the sentencing judge did not engage with the effect of the mental health issues on deterrence – where the sentencing judge erred by not referencing general deterrence – ground upheld

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 33
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 14
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A, 22A, 25A, 25D, 25E, 25F, 44

Cases Cited:
Akkawi v R; Akkawi v R [2012] NSWCCA 11
BAP v R [2024] NSWCCA 206
Baydoun v R [2024] NSWCCA 65
Black v R (2022) 107 NSWLR 225; [2022] NSWCCA 17
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525; [1990] HCA 18
Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150
Christian v R [2021] NSWCCA 300
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Doyle v R (2022) 108 NSWLR 1; [2022]…

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 Sampson v The King

Details

AGLC: Sampson v The King [2025] NSWCCA 25
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 25
Decision Date: 21 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Sampson, appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm at a super call-over, where he struck the victim in the eye causing permanent damage. The appeal centred on the application of sentencing discounts and the assessment of the offence's objective seriousness. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge erred in the calculation of the discount and failed to adequately consider the objective seriousness of the offence and the applicant's mental health issues.

The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in rounding down the discount under sections 22A and 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Additionally, the court had to assess if the sentencing judge erred in the evaluation of the objective seriousness of the offence, particularly whether the lack of planning should be considered a mitigating factor. The court also had to consider whether the sentencing judge failed to engage with the effect of the applicant's mental health issues on the general deterrence aspect of sentencing.

The court found that the sentencing judge erred in rounding down the discount to even months, which resulted in a reduced discount. This was a legal error as the judge was obliged to provide the stipulated discount under section 25D. Consequently, the ground of appeal was upheld. However, the court rejected the ground of appeal regarding the assessment of the objective seriousness, noting that the lack of planning was insignificant given the circumstances of the offence. The court also upheld the ground of appeal concerning the failure to engage with the applicant's mental health issues in the context of general deterrence.

The court ordered a resentencing of the applicant, highlighting that the error was not merely an arithmetical or date error but a legal error that required correction. The court did not provide specific details on the resentencing, leaving it to the sentencing judge to re-evaluate the sentence with the correct application of discounts and consideration of the applicant's mental health issues.

Orders