
Criminal judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
A juvenile was sentenced for manslaughter in the NSW Supreme Court. The court considered factors like the offender's age, background, and potential for rehabilitation when determining the sentence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal reduced the sentence of a woman convicted of social security fraud, taking into account the influence of her ex-partner and mother. The court found that the original sentencing judge misunderstood the timeline of the fraud and failed to consider the influence of the ex-partner and mother.
The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentencing judge made errors in determining the objective seriousness of the offences and in imposing double punishment under s 115 of the Crimes Act 1900. The appeal was successful, and the appellant was resentenced.
The court convicted a company for failing to comply with work health and safety duties, resulting in a fine of $150,000. The company was found to have exposed individuals to a risk of death or serious injury due to inadequate blast management procedures.
The defendant was sentenced to 9 years and 4 months in prison for committing aggravated robbery and supplying drugs. The court considered several factors, including the severity of the crimes and the defendant's prior convictions, before imposing the sentence.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales found the defendant guilty of contempt for refusing to testify and using abusive language in court. Despite the defendant's background of disadvantage and exposure to domestic violence, the court imposed a sentence of 8 months.
The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the applicant more time to request an appeal of their sentence but ultimately denied the appeal. The applicant argued that their health had worsened since sentencing, but the court determined that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the applicant's medical condition at the time of sentencing.
In a drug trafficking case, the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed an appeal against a sentence due to an unjustifiable disparity in sentencing compared to co-offenders. The appeal was successful because the starting point for the sentence was significantly higher than those of the co-offenders.