Legal Research
Cases
Towers v The King

Towers v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 142 17 September 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Towers v R [2025] NSWCCA 142
Hearing dates: 7 July 2025
Date of orders: 17 September 2025
Decision date: 17 September 2025
Before: N Adams J at [1]
Sweeney J at [17]
Coleman J at [20]
Decision:
(1) Extend the time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal;
(2) Grant leave to appeal;
(3) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – application of R v Henry guideline judgment – whether subjective factors were relied on in the determination of objective seriousness – finding that applicant did not accept responsibility for harm to victim- whether finding of remorse should have been made – parity where no joint criminal enterprise – manifest excess – where judgment delivered ex tempore – appeal brought out of time – extension granted – ground 1 upheld – no lesser sentence warranted – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Ali v R [2010] NSWCCA
Alvares v R Farache v R [2011] NSWCCA 33
Azzi v R [2008] NSWCCA 169
Baladjam v R (2018) 341 FLR 162; [2018] NSWCCA 304
BAP v R [2024] NSWCCA 206
BC v R [2020] NSWCCA 329
Braithwaite v R [2024] NSWCCA 15
Brzozowski v R [2023] NSWCCA 129
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
DS v R [2017] NSWCCA 37
Foaiaulima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270
Hawat v R [2020] NSWCCA 121
He v Sun (2021) 104 NSWLR 518; [2021] NSWCA 95
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Humphreys v R [2020] NSWCCA 144
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
Kelly v R [2017] NSWCCA 82
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Lee v R [2020] NSWCCA 244
Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
Makarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
McDonald v R [2015] NSWCCA 280
Mihelic v R [2019] NSWCCA 2
Mulato v R [2016] NSWCCA 282
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA
Patel v R [2022] NSWCCA 93
Pritchard v R [2022] NSWCCA 130
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Kennedy [2019] NSWCCA 242
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343
Saab v R [2025] NSWCCA 58
Tuncbilek v R [2020] NSWCCA 30
Windle v R [2011] NSWCCA 277

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jordan Towers (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Trevallion SC (Applicant)
B Costello (Crown)
Solicitors:
Hunter and Braddon (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2023/089566
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

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 Towers v The King

Details

AGLC: Towers v The King [2025] NSWCCA 142
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 142
Decision Date: 17 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Towers v The King involved the appellant who was convicted of multiple charges including serious criminal offences. The appellant sought an appeal against the sentence imposed, arguing that the sentencing judge had misapplied the guideline judgment of R v Henry. Specifically, the appellant contended that the judge had improperly relied on subjective factors in determining the objective seriousness of the crime. Additionally, the appellant argued that the judge should have found that they accepted responsibility for the harm caused to the victim and that they should have been credited for remorse, even though there was no joint criminal enterprise.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the guideline judgment of R v Henry, and if the judge's findings regarding the appellant's responsibility and remorse were justified. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and whether an extension of time to bring the appeal was warranted due to the judgment being delivered ex tempore.

In its reasoning, the court found that the sentencing judge had indeed misapplied the guideline judgment by relying on subjective factors. However, the court determined that the error was not substantial enough to result in a manifestly excessive sentence. The court further found that the judge's decision not to credit the appellant for accepting responsibility and remorse was justified. The court granted the extension of time to bring the appeal due to the ex tempore nature of the original judgment. Ultimately, the court upheld the ground of appeal regarding the misapplication of the guideline judgment but dismissed the appeal on the basis that no lesser sentence was warranted.

Orders