AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 14 October 2026

Geoghegan v R

[2026] NSWCCA 164

Fraud & dishonesty
CRIME APPEAL APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE MATERIAL CONTRIBUTION MORAL CULPABILITY GENERAL DETERRENCE

Citation: Geoghegan v R [2026] NSWCCA 164
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 14 October 2026
Judge(s): N Adams CJ at CL, Dhanji J, Muston J

Background

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to a single rolled-up count of dishonestly causing financial disadvantage by deception under s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offence involved 108 separate transactions over a sustained period, through which she misappropriated a substantial sum from her employer, Shellharbour Roofing Services, exploiting the trust placed in her.

The District Court sentenced her to 6 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years, after applying a 25 per cent discount for her early plea of guilty. Psychiatric and psychological reports before the sentencing judge established that she suffered from a number of mental disorders, including major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and an eating disorder, and that those conditions contributed causally to her offending.

The single ground of appeal was that the sentencing judge failed to determine whether her mental disorders materially contributed to her offending and, consequently, failed to address the impact of those disorders on her moral culpability, the weight to be given to general deterrence, and other sentencing factors.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to determine that the applicant's mental conditions materially contributed to her offending.
  • Whether, having implicitly found reduced moral culpability, the sentencing judge erred by failing to address the impact of the applicant's mental disorders on the weight to be given to general deterrence.
  • Whether any submission on general deterrence was in fact made at first instance, and what role the transcript of sentencing proceedings plays in establishing that question on appeal.
  • Whether a sentencing judge may be required to consider the impact of a mental condition on general deterrence even in the absence of a specific submission to that effect.

Decision

Ground 1 (Moral culpability): The Court rejected the argument that the sentencing judge failed to address material contribution or moral culpability. Although the sentencing judge did not use the phrase "moral culpability" in terms, his Honour's reasoning made clear that he accepted Dr Furst's opinion that multiple causal relationships existed between the applicant's mental disorders and her offending (at [29]). His Honour's rejection of "pure greed" as a simplistic explanation and his observation that understanding "why she did what she did" could only be understood as an acknowledgement of reduced blameworthiness (at [33]). The related complaint about moral culpability was not sustained.

Ground 1 (General deterrence): The sentencing judge gave weight to general deterrence but made no reference to any potential impact of the applicant's mental conditions on that factor (at [36]). The Court held that a mental condition need not materially contribute to the offending before it can operate to reduce the weight given to general deterrence (at [51]). Given that the psychiatric evidence was a substantial part of the mitigation case, and that it was necessarily before the sentencing judge in a way that made its relevance to general deterrence apparent, error was established through the failure to consider it in that context (at [54]-[55]).

Whether a submission was made: The Crown argued that no submission about general deterrence was made at first instance. The Court, by reference to the transcript of the proceedings, rejected that premise (at [61]). Dhanji J observed that sentencing proceedings are conducted with informality, and that counsel's reference to general deterrence combined with the Crown's own address treating it as live meant the issue had not been abandoned (at [59]-[60]). Muston J agreed, but noted the relevant submission was "at best, a footprint left in sand" largely washed away by the subsequent exchange, and expressly declined to criticise the sentencing judge for not addressing it (at [88], [92]).

The broader question (unprompted consideration): Both Dhanji J and Muston J declined to decide whether the sentencing judge would have been required to address the general deterrence issue had no submission at all been made. Muston J observed that there will be cases where a mental condition is so significant, or its connection to the offending so clear, that a judge is required to consider its impact on general deterrence without a specific submission, but also cases where the condition and its connection are not sufficient to compel that approach in the absence of a submission (at [87]). The present case was described by Muston J and N Adams CJ at CL as "very finely balanced" (at [88]).

Resentencing: Conducting the resentencing exercise, Dhanji J started at a base sentence of 7 years, applied a 25 per cent discount for the plea, and found special circumstances, resulting in a sentence of 5 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years (at [78]). The Court found the offence was at the upper end of the scale of objective gravity given the sustained breach of trust and the amount involved (at [68]-[69]). The applicant's otherwise good character was relevant but its significance was much diminished because it was precisely that character that enabled the offending to commence and continue (at [71]). General deterrence retained prominence given the breach of trust, but was moderated to some extent by the applicant's mental disorders, noting that moderation could not be great (at [75]).

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal allowed.
  • Sentence of the District Court imposed on 15 December 2025 quashed and replaced with imprisonment for 5 years and 3 months, commencing 26 March 2025 and expiring 25 June 2030, with a non-parole period of 3 years expiring 25 March 2028.

Key Takeaways

  • A sentencing judge's failure to address the potential impact of a diagnosed mental condition on the weight to be given to general deterrence can constitute House v The King error, even where no specific submission on that point was made, provided the evidence was sufficiently before the court and its relevance was sufficiently apparent (at [51]-[55]).

  • Under the principles drawn from De La Rosa and Verdins, a mental condition need not materially contribute to the offending before it can operate to reduce the weight given to general deterrence in sentencing. That connection, however, may affect the degree of any reduction (at [51], [53]).

  • Not every diagnosed mental condition will necessarily justify reduced weight on general deterrence. Muston J emphasised that the De La Rosa principles emerged from cases involving severe mental conditions directly connected with offending, and that whether a less severe or less connected condition requires the same analysis in the absence of a submission will depend on the particular facts (at [83]-[87]).

  • Error is ordinarily to be found in the reasons for sentence rather than in the transcript of proceedings, but recourse to the transcript is permissible in limited circumstances: where procedural fairness is alleged, where a question of adequacy of reasons arises, or where there is a genuine dispute about whether a particular submission was made at first instance (at [2]-[6]).

  • Advocates appearing at sentence bear an obligation to make their submissions clearly and forcefully. N Adams CJ at CL observed that it should not be necessary for an appellate court to parse transcripts to determine what submission, if any, was advanced on a given topic (at [7]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 192E
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A
- Crimes ( Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 53A
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5

Cases
- Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
- Barbieri v R [2016] NSWCCA 295
- Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25
- Brown v R (2018) 99 NSWLR 151; [2018] NSWCCA 257
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Carroll v R [2012] NSWCCA 118
- DB v R [2023] NSWCCA 323
- Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Partridge (2009) 74 NSWLR 62; [2009] NSWCCA 75
- DL v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 1; [2018] HCA 26
- DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
- ET v R [2024] NSWCCA 131
- Farrugia v The King [2026] HCA 28
- GAS v The Queen; SJK v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22
- Griffin v R [2018] NSWCCA 259
- Hampton v R [2014] NSWCCA 131
- Hamra v The Queen (2017) 260 CLR 479; [2017] HCA 38
- Hong v R [2026] NSWCCA 64
- House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
- Johnston v R [2017] NSWCCA 53
- Kelly v R [2016] NSWCCA 246
- Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
- Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- McLaughlin v R [2025] NSWCCA 13
- MDP v The King [2025] HCA 24; (2025) 99 ALJR 969
- Meoli v R [2021] NSWCCA 213
- Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73
- Moreno v R; Gomez v R [2023] NSWCCA 149
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- Munro v R [2006] NSWCCA 350
- Nudd v The Queen [2006] HCA 9; (2006) 80 ALRJ 614
- R v Bourchas [2002] NSWCCA 373; (2002) 133 A Crim R 413
- R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183
- R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115; [2000] NSWCCA 317
- R v Donald [2013] NSWCCA 238
- R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
- R v Geoghegan [2025] NSWDC 558
- R v Glynatsis [2013] NSWCCA 131; (2013) 230 A Crim R 99
- R v Grossi [2008] VSCA 51; (2008) 183 A Crim R 15
- R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
- R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
- R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242
- R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129
- R v Richard [2011] NSWSC 866
- R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102
- R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
- Refaieh v R [2018] NSWCCA 72
- Reid v Rowbottam (2005) 15 NTLR 1; [2005] NTSC 7
- Richardson v R [2025] NSWCCA 197
- Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21
- Stewart v R [2012] NSWCCA 183
- Syed v R [2026] NSWCCA 47
- The Queen v Guode (2020) 267 CLR 141; [2020] HCA 8
- The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
- West, Trent v R [2017] NSWCCA 271
- Wornes v R [2022] NSWCCA 184
- You, Jae Bok v R [2020] NSWCCA 71
- Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; (2012) 223 A Crim R 460