Stanton v R [2024] NSWCCA 185

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 [2024] NSWCCA 187 Simpson v R [2019] NSWCCA 137 Stocco, Gino v R; Stocco, Mark v R [2018] NSWCCA 77 Truong v R; R v Le; Nguyen v R; R v Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 36 Wang v R [2023] NSWCCA 208 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Blake Stanton (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Ryan (Applicant) J Styles (Respondent)