AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 6 February 2026

Simpson (a pseudonym) v R

[2026] NSWCCA 6

Assault & violencePublic order & justice offences

Citation: [2026] NSWCCA 6
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 6 February 2026
Judge(s): Mitchelmore JA, Ierace J, McNaughton J

Background

The applicant, referred to by the pseudonym "Simpson," was convicted by jury in the District Court on two counts: specially aggravated detention for advantage (under s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) and acting with intent to influence a witness (under s 323A of the same Act). She was sentenced by Latham ADCJ on 17 November 2023 to a total effective sentence of 11 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years.

The underlying conduct involved the applicant detaining a young woman — who had been living in the applicant's home and assisting with childcare — in a shed at the rear of the applicant's property for approximately 20 hours. The detention occurred the morning after the victim had lost control of a car while the applicant's six-year-old daughter was a rear-seat passenger. During the detention, the victim was physically restrained with cable ties, struck in the face causing dental injuries, threatened with an angle grinder, and subjected to sustained intimidation, with co-offenders assisting in maintaining the detention. The second offence involved the applicant sending encrypted messages to one of her co-offenders, attempting to persuade him not to accept a negotiated plea that would involve giving evidence against her at trial.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence on three grounds: that the sentencing judge erroneously characterised the offending as "methodical," "calculated," and "systematic"; that the sentencing judge failed to properly consider the applicant's mental health conditions (including diagnosed PTSD) in assessing moral culpability and any causal connection with the offence; and that the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.

  • Whether the sentencing judge's characterisation of the applicant's conduct as "methodical," "calculated," and "systematic" was reasonably open on the evidence or constituted an unsupported finding that the offence was pre-planned.
  • Whether the sentencing judge failed to give proper consideration to the applicant's PTSD and other mental health conditions, including:
  • Whether her Honour overlooked the severity of the applicant's PTSD; and
  • Whether her Honour erred in failing to find a causal connection between the applicant's mental health conditions and the detention offence.
  • Whether the total effective sentence of 11 years' imprisonment (with a 6-year non-parole period) was manifestly excessive, having regard to the objective seriousness of the offence and the applicant's subjective circumstances.

Decision

Ground 1 — "Methodical, calculated and systematic": The Court found that the sentencing judge's use of the words "methodical," "calculating," and "systematic" did not amount to a finding that the offence was pre-planned. Rather, these descriptors referred to the character of the applicant's conduct during the detention — that is, the sustained, intentional, and continuing nature of the violence and intimidation, which was designed to induce a prolonged sense of fear in the victim. The Court held this characterisation was reasonably open on the evidence, which included the victim being physically restrained, repeatedly assaulted, threatened with various implements, and held for around 20 hours.

Ground 2 — Mental health conditions: The Court rejected the submission that the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the applicant's PTSD or other mental health conditions. The evidence regarding PTSD and its causal connection to the offending was contested at the sentencing hearing, and her Honour was not obliged to accept it. The Court found that the sentencing judge had engaged with the mental health evidence and had not overlooked or failed to consider its significance. This ground was not established.

Ground 3 — Manifest excess: The Court considered the objective seriousness of the detention offence — which involved sustained violence, the use of weapons and restraints, co-offenders, and a prolonged period of detention — alongside the applicant's subjective factors. It also examined comparative sentencing cases, noting the wide range of factual circumstances and injury severity that arise in detention offences. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed fell within the available range and was not manifestly excessive.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed on all three grounds.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • Describing an offence as "methodical," "calculated," or "systematic" does not necessarily equate to a finding of pre-planning; the Court of Criminal Appeal held that a sentencing judge may use such terms to characterise the deliberate and sustained nature of conduct as it unfolded, even in the absence of pre-meditation in a traditional sense.
  • A sentencing judge is not obliged to accept expert evidence regarding a causal connection between a diagnosed mental health condition and offending behaviour, particularly where that evidence is challenged. The appellate Court assessed whether the evidence had been considered, not whether it had been accepted.
  • In dismissing the comparative sentencing argument, the Court of Criminal Appeal reiterated that in offences such as aggravated detention, the wide variety of factual circumstances and injury severity makes comparative case analysis less determinative, with such cases providing guidance rather than establishing rigid sentencing bands.
  • Under the principles in Bugmy v The Queen, PTSD and similar conditions can be relevant to reducing an offender's moral culpability, but such a reduction depends on the strength of the evidence connecting the condition to the offending. Where the evidence was equivocal or contested, the sentencing judge retained significant discretion.
  • No error was established in the imposition of a non-parole period representing 55 per cent of the total sentence, which the Court of Criminal Appeal declined to disturb in the circumstances of the case.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44(1)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 86(3), 195(1)(a), 323A
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(c)

Cases:
- Banat v R [2020] NSWCCA 321
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Green v R [2022] NSWCCA 230
- Hancock v R [2025] NSWCCA 213
- House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
- Jackson v R [2022] NSWCCA 148
- O'Brien v R [2023] NSWCCA 41
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- Rahman v R [2023] NSWCCA 148