Legal Research
Cases
Stobinski v The King

Stobinski v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 97 25 June 2025

Sentencing

Reckless Infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm

Mental Health Issues

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stobinski v R [2025] NSWCCA 97
Hearing dates: 30 May 2025
Date of orders: 25 June 2025
Decision date: 25 June 2025
Before: Davies J at [1]
Hamill J at [2]
McNaughton J at [61]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
(2) Allow the appeal.
(3) Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 29 August 2024 and in lieu thereof:
(a) For sequence 3, reckless infliction of grievous bodily harm, the applicant is sentenced to a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months commencing on 29 August 2024 and expiring on 28 February 2026. There will be a balance of term of 1 year expiring on 28 February 2027.
(b) For sequence 4, common assault, the applicant is sentenced to a fixed term of 3 months imprisonment commencing on 29 August 2024 and expiring on 28 November 2024.
(c) The applicant will be eligible for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – reckless infliction of grievous bodily harm – appeal against sentence – uncontested evidence of frontal lobe damage, cognitive impairment and post-traumatic stress disorder and/or depressive illness – submissions made on relevance to moral culpability and general deterrence – robust exchange but submissions not withdrawn – where sentencing judge found on balance that mental health issues played some role in commission of the offence – absence of engagement with relevant principles conspicuous – appeal upheld and offender re-sentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 35
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 5, 44

Cases Cited:
Attorney-General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25
Crane v R [2024] NSWCCA 87
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226
Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73
R v Champion (1992) 64 A Crim R 244
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v Letteri (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 18 March 1992, unrep)
R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
Ryan v Regina [2017] NSWCCA 209
Testici v R [2025] NSWCCA 88
YM v R [2023] NSWCCA 75
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; (2012) 223 A Crim R 460

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Simons Szymon Stobinski (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Averre and R Thomas-Dubler (Applicant)
E Wilkins SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Smythe Wozniak Lawyers (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2023/00131958
Publication restriction: N/A
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

N/A

Date of Decision:

29 August 2024

Before:

King…

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 Stobinski v The King

Details

AGLC: Stobinski v The King [2025] NSWCCA 97
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 97
Decision Date: 25 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Stobinski, the appellant, who was convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The appeal was focused on the sentence imposed by the lower court, which Stobinski considered to be excessive. The High Court of Australia was tasked with examining the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the appellant’s contested mental health issues, including frontal lobe damage, cognitive impairment, and post-traumatic stress disorder and/or depressive illness. These conditions were argued to be relevant to both the appellant’s moral culpability and the purposes of general deterrence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant’s mental health issues when determining the sentence. The submissions made by both parties were robust, with significant emphasis placed on the relevance of the mental health conditions to the appellant’s moral culpability and the broader aims of sentencing. Despite the vigorous debate, neither party withdrew their respective submissions. The appellant argued that his mental health conditions should have been given greater weight, potentially reducing the severity of the sentence. The Crown, on the other hand, maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had acknowledged the role of the appellant’s mental health issues in the commission of the offence but had not sufficiently engaged with the relevant legal principles in fashioning the sentence. The absence of a thorough analysis of how these issues impacted moral culpability and general deterrence was deemed critical. The court concluded that the sentencing judge’s failure to adequately consider the mitigating effects of the appellant’s mental health conditions led to an inappropriate sentence. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the case was remitted to the lower court for re-sentencing, with instructions to properly consider the mitigating factors presented by the appellant’s mental health issues.

Orders