Buxton v R [2017] NSWCCA 169

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Buxton v R [2017] NSWCCA 169 Hearing dates: 20 March 2017 Date of orders: 17 July 2017 Decision date: 17 July 2017 Before: Bathurst CJ and Walton J at [1]; Price J at [122]. Decision: (1) Leave to appeal be granted.

(2) The appeal be allowed.

(3) The sentence imposed on the appellant on 3 December 2015 for the offence of armed robbery with an offensive weapon be quashed.

(4) The appellant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 5 months commencing on 25 April 2014 consisting of a non-parole period of 4 years expiring on 24 April 2018 and a balance of term of 2 years and 5 months expiring on 24 September 2020. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – appeal against sentence – whether sentencing judge erred in his consideration of the applicant's disadvantaged background – whether sentencing judge erred in his consideration of the guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 – whether manifestly excessive Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 97(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5(1)(c) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 22(1A), 33 Cases Cited: Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2 Bland v The Queen (2014) 241 A Crim R 51; [2014] NSWCCA 82 Bloomfield v R [2013] NSWCCA 315 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 Cowan v R [2015] NSWCCA 118 Currie v R [2013] NSWCCA 267 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Gal v R [2015] NSWCCA 242 Gardner v R [2015] NSWCCA 170 Graham v R [2009] NSWCCA 212 Hamed v R [2011] NSWCCA 219 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Huynh v R [2008] NSWCCA 216 Johnston v R [2017] NSWCCA 53 Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260 Kentwell v R (No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 96 Lee v R [2016] NSWCCA 146 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282 Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234 Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305; [1982] HCA 55 Ngati v R [2014] NSWCCA 125 Opacic v R [2013] NSWCCA 294 Pham v R [2013] NSWCCA 217 PK v R [2012] NSWCCA 263 R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85 R v Cobb [2015] NSWDC 66 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242 R v Morrison [2013] NSWDC 334 R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39 R v Pham [2013] NSWCCA 217 R v Speechley (2012) 221 A Crim R 175; [2012] NSWCCA 130 R v SZ (2007) 168 A Crim R 249; [2007] NSWCCA 19 R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 TYN v R (2009) 195 A Crim R 345; [2009] NSWCCA 146 Vaiusu v R [2017] NSWCCA 71 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Yang v R [2012] NSWCCA 49 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Zachary Peter Buxton (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: R Burgess (Applicant) M M Cinque SC (Respondent)