Citation: Fritz v R [2026] NSWCCA 77
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales
Date: 12 June 2026
Judge(s): Free JA, Rigg J, Sirtes J (Sirtes J delivering the principal judgment)
Background
The applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to four principal offences: two armed robberies committed with a co-offender in Armidale in the early hours of 30 September 2023, a take-and-drive offence arising from the same events, and an aggravated break, enter and steal while armed, committed on 9 October 2023. Additional offences were taken into account on a Form 1. The applicant had been armed with a machete during the September robberies and a large piece of wood during the October break-in, which occurred while the victim's family, including an elderly man, were asleep inside.
On 25 October 2024, Payne DCJ sentenced the applicant in the District Court at Armidale to an aggregate term of 8 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months, after applying a 25% discount for the guilty pleas. The sentencing judge described the exercise as "a very difficult sentencing exercise," acknowledging the applicant's background of dysfunction and disadvantage alongside the seriousness of the offending.
The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal on two grounds: that the sentencing judge erred in failing properly to assess the objective seriousness of the aggravated break and enter offence (which carries a standard non-parole period), and that the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.
Legal Issues
- Whether a sentencing judge is required to place an assessment of objective seriousness on a "notional range" when sentencing for an offence carrying a standard non-parole period
- Whether the aggregate sentence of 8 years was manifestly excessive, having regard to the indicative individual sentences, the totality principle, and comparative sentencing statistics from JIRS (the Judicial Information Research System)
Decision
Ground 1: Objective seriousness
The Court confirmed that assessing objective seriousness is a critical part of any sentencing exercise, whether or not an offence carries a standard non-parole period. However, there is no requirement for a sentencing judge to express that assessment by reference to a putative or notional range. What matters is that the judge identifies the facts, circumstances and matters that bear on the gravity of the crime.
The sentencing judge had described the circumstances of each offence in some detail and characterised them as "very serious," identifying the features that justified that conclusion. The Court noted that the remarks on sentence were delivered ex tempore and were to be read fairly, not subjected to fine-grained textual analysis. No error was established in her Honour's approach.
Ground 2: Manifest excess
The Court applied the well-settled principles governing manifest excess appeals, including those concerning aggregate sentences. The applicant did not suggest any misapplication of the guideline judgment in R v Henry concerning robbery offences. The Court found no error in the application of the totality principle, and confirmed that no error could be inferred simply by comparing the indicative individual sentences with the aggregate sentence. The sentencing judge was not required to specify precisely the degree of accumulation and concurrence applied.
On the statistics point, the Court reaffirmed the limited utility of JIRS sentencing data. Even accepting, as the applicant acknowledged, that the indicative sentences were "arguably high" compared to like cases, that characterisation falls well short of demonstrating manifest excess. The Court was unpersuaded that the aggregate sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust.
Orders Made
- Leave to appeal granted
- Appeal dismissed
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing judge assessing objective seriousness is not required to locate that finding on a notional range. Identifying the relevant facts and circumstances that bear on the gravity of the offence is sufficient.
- Ex tempore remarks on sentence are to be read fairly and as a whole, not parsed for technical omissions.
- No error in an aggregate sentence can be established merely by comparing indicative sentences with the final aggregate figure; a sentencing judge is not obliged to state explicitly the degree of accumulation or concurrence applied.
- Sentencing statistics from JIRS are of very limited utility in manifest excess appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeal reaffirmed that a sentence falling at or near the higher end of a statistical range does not, of itself, establish that the sentencing discretion miscarried.
- In dismissing the appeal, the Court confirmed that an applicant's subjective circumstances, including a background of dysfunction and disadvantage, were matters properly addressed by the sentencing judge at first instance, and their presence does not automatically render an otherwise appropriate sentence excessive.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 97, 112, 154A
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 53A, 54A, 54B
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 10
- Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW), s 16
Cases
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
- Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- R v Campbell [2014] NSWCCA 102
- Bektasovski v R [2022] NSWCCA 246; 407 ALR 125
- Kochai v R [2023] NSWCCA 116
- Daher v R [2026] NSWCCA 26
- Ahmad v R [2019] NSWCCA 198
- Lee v R [2020] NSWCCA 244
- Truong v R; R v Le; Nguyen v R; R v Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 36
- Kliendienst v R [2020] NSWCCA 98
- Towers v R [2025] NSWCCA 142
- Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
- DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200
- Foaiaulima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270; 285 A Crim R 222
- R v Rose [2024] NSWCCA 193