AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 9 September 2026

Skinner v R

[2026] NSWCCA 131

Assault & violence

Citation: Skinner v R [2026] NSWCCA 131
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 9 September 2026
Judge(s): Hamill J, Rigg J, Coleman J

Background

The applicant pleaded guilty to a single count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), following an incident in the early hours of 18 April 2021. The applicant and another man attended a residential premises in Daceyville, gained entry, and the applicant struck the victim across the hand with a machete, inflicting a serious laceration, a fractured bone, and tendon and nerve damage that required six hours of surgery and resulted in ongoing disability.

The sentencing judge in the District Court at Parramatta imposed a sentence of 7 years, 1 month and 15 days, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months, after applying a 5% discount for the utilitarian value of the guilty plea. The maximum penalty for the offence is 25 years, with a standard non-parole period of 7 years.

The applicant sought leave to appeal on the single ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

  • Whether the sentence of 7 years, 1 month and 15 days was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.
  • Whether the sentencing judge gave adequate weight to the cumulation of factors bearing on the applicant's moral culpability, including his subjective circumstances, mental health conditions, and intellectual disability, consistent with the principles in Bugmy, De La Rosa, and Henry.
  • Whether the more onerous nature of full-time custody for the applicant, by reason of his health conditions, warranted a finding of special circumstances to alter the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of term.

Decision

Ground 1: Manifest Excess

The Court found the sentence was unreasonable and plainly unjust, and therefore manifestly excessive. Coleman J, with whom Hamill and Rigg JJ agreed, concluded that the sentence disclosed error because the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient cumulative weight to a range of mitigating considerations taken together.

Those considerations included the objective seriousness of the offending (which the sentencing judge had found did not involve premeditation beyond the applicant being armed, and involved only a single blow after which the applicant ceased the attack), the applicant's subjective circumstances, the modest 5% plea discount, the reduction in moral culpability arising from the Bugmy and De La Rosa factors, the Henry principles, and the fact that custody would be considerably more onerous for the applicant given his mental health conditions and intellectual disability. Comparable cases, while not precisely analogous, illustrated a significant disparity in the severity of the sentence imposed.

Resentencing

On resentencing, the Court applied a pre-discount head sentence of 6 years, reduced by 5% to yield a term of 5 years, 8 months and 11 days. The Court accepted that the applicant's subjective circumstances, including the Bugmy and De La Rosa factors, required a significant reduction in moral culpability, with correspondingly less weight to be given to general deterrence, denunciation, and punishment in the sentencing synthesis.

The Court found special circumstances, warranting a departure from the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of term, by reason of the applicant's mental health issues, intellectual disability, and the significantly more onerous nature of full-time custody for him. The non-parole period was set at 3 years and 6 months.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal allowed.
  • Sentence imposed in the District Court on 11 April 2025 quashed.
  • Applicant resentenced to imprisonment for a term of 5 years, 8 months and 11 days, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months and a balance of term of 2 years, 2 months and 11 days.
  • Sentence taken to have commenced on 9 July 2022 and to expire on 20 March 2028.
  • Applicant became eligible for release to parole on 8 January 2026.

Key Takeaways

  • A sentence may be manifestly excessive where the sentencing judge fails to give adequate cumulative weight to the combined effect of mitigating factors, even where individual findings are not in dispute.
  • The Bugmy, De La Rosa, and Henry principles, when engaged by a combination of deprived background, mental health conditions, and intellectual disability, can require a significant reduction in moral culpability and a corresponding reduction in the weight given to general deterrence, denunciation, and punishment.
  • Where full-time custody will be considerably more onerous for an offender by reason of mental health conditions and intellectual disability, that onerousness is a recognised sentencing consideration and may found a finding of special circumstances.
  • Under s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the maximum penalty is 25 years and the standard non-parole period is 7 years; the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that these figures operate as legislative guideposts rather than determinative benchmarks.
  • Comparable cases are not strictly binding in sentencing appeals, but significant disparity between an imposed sentence and sentences in similar matters remains a relevant consideration in assessing whether a sentence is unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- 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
- Harris v R [2021] NSWCCA 322
- He v Sun (2021) 104 NSWLR 518; [2021] NSWCA 95
- Khudadadi v R [2021] NSWCCA 259
- Morris v R [2026] NSWCCA 119
- Muggleton v R [2015] NSWCCA 62; (2015) 250 A Crim R 180
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- Murray v R [2019] NSWCCA 235
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- Porter v R [2015] NSWCCA 59
- R v Austin [2021] NSWDC 440
- R v Elemes [2000] NSWCCA 235
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
- R v Holland [2022] NSWDC 118
- Shalida v R [2024] NSWCCA 55
- TH v R [2025] NSWCCA 121
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1998) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14