Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW) case law

Court of Criminal Appeal Quashes Inadequate Drug Supply Sentences

Appeal Allowed Due to Admission of Irrelevant Evidence

Appeal dismissed: Sentencing for malicious wounding and aggravated robbery upheld

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed an appeal challenging the sentences for malicious wounding and aggravated robbery. The court emphasised the importance of balancing sentencing goals and allowing judges to exercise discretion.

Appeal Dismissed: Sentencing for Manslaughter and Armed Robbery Upheld

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed an appeal challenging sentences for manslaughter and armed robbery. The court affirmed the sentences, considering the appellant's mental health and the totality principle.

Sentence Upheld for Manslaughter - Court of Criminal Appeal Decision

Appeal Against Conviction Allowed Due to Jury Deliberation Issues

The appeal against conviction was allowed because the trial judge did not follow the proper procedure for jury deliberation as outlined in section 55F(2) of the [NAME] Act. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the jury has deliberated for a reasonable amount of time, taking into account the complexity of the case.

Appeal Dismissed in Aggravated Assault Case

In this case, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed an appeal against a sentence for aggravated assault with intent to rob. The court found that the sentencing judge did not make a mistake when initially considering a different sentence and then changing it.

Appeal Dismissed: Attempt to Possess Methylamphetamine

Sentence Quashed for Manifest Inadequacy in NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal quashed a sentence for manifest inadequacy, emphasising errors in assessing the seriousness of the offence and overlooking important factors that should have increased the sentence.

Adjustment of Sentences for Multiple Armed Robberies

The Court of Criminal Appeal adjusted the sentences for a person convicted of multiple armed robbery offences. The adjustments were made to better reflect the total criminal conduct involved.

Appeal Dismissed: Sexual Offences Against Minor - NSWCCA Judgment

Appeal Against Sentence Allowed in Part - NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

In this case, the Court allowed the appeal against sentence on Count 3 but dismissed the appeal on Count 2. The Court ensured the combined effect of sentences conformed with the statutory ratio under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Majority Verdict Errors Lead to Conviction Quash

Conviction Quashed Due to Jury Selection Error

Appeal Against Sentence Dismissed: Sexual Assault on Minor Upheld

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed an appeal against sentence, upholding the severity of the sentence for sexual assault on a minor, considering exceptional mitigating factors.

Appeal Against Sentence for Sexual Offences Against Siblings

In this case, the Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed a sentence for sexual offences against siblings. The court found the original sentence excessive and imposed a new non-parole period with conditions for parole, acknowledging the defendant's rehabilitation efforts and the need for ongoing supervision.

Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence Dismissed

Sentence Reduced for Intellectually Disabled Convict

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal reduced a three-year limiting term to two years for an intellectually disabled individual convicted of aggravated sexual assault. The court found the original sentence to be too harsh, taking into account the defendant's intellectual disability and other mitigating factors.

Sentence Reduced to 10 Years in NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal reduced the claimant's sentence from 13 years to 10 years, adjusting the non-parole periods. The court found the original sentence excessive and adjusted it to be fairer.

Sentence deemed inadequate for money laundering and drug possession

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal found that the original sentence for money laundering and drug possession was too lenient. The court highlighted that the sentencing judge did not adequately reflect the severity of the crimes and overvalued certain mitigating factors.