Legal Research
Cases
Stanton v The King

Stanton v The King

Case [2024] NSWCCA 185 25 October 2024

Sentencing

Appeal

Manifestly Excessive Sentence

Disparity Between Sentences

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stanton v R [2024] NSWCCA 185
Hearing dates: 25 September 2024
Date of orders: 25 October 2024
Decision date: 25 October 2024
Before: Davies J at [1]
Garling J at [100]
Chen J at [114]
Decision:
(1) Extend time for the applicant to appeal to 26 July 2024.
(2) Grant leave to appeal.
(3) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeals – appeal against sentence – aggregate sentence – whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive – where the offending occurred in the community and in custody – where the community offending involved offences at five establishments in one night and another location a few days prior – where the offending in custody amounted to a riot and involved threatening prison officers – where the applicant was on bail for other offences – where the sentencing judge took into account the applicant’s youth and deprivation – where community protection and general deterrence were found to be significant – where challenge made to some of indicative sentences and to notional accumulation - where the only sentence relevant to a ground alleging manifest excess is an aggregate sentence – given the nature of the offending the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive
SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – co-offenders – disparity between sentences – whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance at the lack of disparity between his sentence and that of his co-offender – where the sentencing judge gave consideration to parity – where the indicative sentences for the same offences were identical or explicable by a Form 1 – where both offenders had similar backgrounds and were of a similar age – where the co-offender had additional charges and a worse criminal history – where the co-offender received an increased maximum sentence, increased non-parole period and a lesser reduction in the statutory ratio – applicant did not have a justifiable sense of grievance

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 33, 97, 112, 113, 114, 154A, 195
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A, 53A, 56
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) s 53

Cases Cited:
BJS v R [2013] NSWCCA 123; (2013) 231 A Crim R 537
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
CMB v Attorney General for NSW (2015) 256 CLR 220; [2015] HCA 9
Dunn v R [2023] NSWCCA 1
El Masri v R [2022] NSWCCA 27
Estephan v R [2015] NSWCCA 100
Haines v R [2021] NSWCCA 149
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; (2014) 246 A Crim R 548
Lam v R [2014] NSWCCA 50
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
PD v R [2012] NSWCCA 242
R v Jeremiah [2016] NSWCCA 241
Rowland v R

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 Stanton v The King

Details

AGLC: Stanton v The King [2024] NSWCCA 185
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 185
Decision Date: 25 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Stanton v The King, the applicant appealed against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive and that there was insufficient disparity between his sentence and that of his co-offender. The applicant was on bail for other offences when he committed a series of serious crimes, including offences at five different establishments over one night, and another location a few days prior. While in custody, the applicant also engaged in a riot and threatened prison officers. The sentencing judge imposed an aggregate sentence, taking into account the applicant’s youth, deprivation, and the need for community protection and general deterrence. The applicant contested the aggregate sentence and the lack of disparity with his co-offender’s sentence, who had a worse criminal history and additional charges.

The court examined whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive and whether there was sufficient disparity between the applicant’s sentence and that of his co-offender. The court found that the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the nature and seriousness of the offending. The court also considered that the sentencing judge had appropriately taken into account the applicant’s youth and deprivation, and the need for community protection and general deterrence. Regarding the disparity between sentences, the court noted that the sentencing judge had given consideration to parity, and that the indicative sentences for the same offences were identical or explicable by a Form 1. The court concluded that the applicant did not have a justifiable sense of grievance regarding the disparity in sentences, as his co-offender had additional charges and a worse criminal history.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the applicant's appeal against sentence. The court found that the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive and that there was no justifiable sense of grievance regarding the disparity between the applicant’s sentence and that of his co-offender. The applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the nature and seriousness of the offending, as well as the need for community protection and general deterrence, when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders