By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim
New South Wales man Todd Skinner has successfully appealed his sentence relating to one count of wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm in respect of a machete attack on a Mr Alchin in a Sydney eastern suburbs home, as his sentence was found to be manifestly excessive, due to the fact that a range of mitigating factors were identified but not properly applied by the trial judge.
At around 12.30 am on 18 April 2021, Skinner was standing beside a bed in the Daceyville home of a Ms Moore, who was on the bed asleep beside Alchin. The assailant and a Mr Bingham had entered Moore’s bedroom, asking Alchin if he had any stuff, to which he replied, ‘no’. Then Skinner pulled out the machete, waved it about, and Alchin asked him to stop, or someone would get hurt.
Skinner replied, “Yeah you.” He then held the machete above his head and swung it at Alchin, who raised his hand to deflect it. The machete struck Alchin’s hand, and its tip scraped his leg. Moore woke up and said, “Why did you do that?”, and Skinner fled, whilst Bingham stayed behind and in reply to the question explained that the assault was due to his having “been cracked in the face”.
Bingham, who had been at the Daceyville residence two days prior, when Alchin and his partner had been there, then fled the scene too. On the earlier occasion, Bingham had been punched in the head by a man called Damo. It was also heard that in the days before the attack, Bingham had exchanged numerous texts about an intended confrontation, but these didn’t involve Skinner.
District Court matters
In Parramatta District Court, Skinner, then 38 years old, eventually pleaded guilty to an amended indictment in early 2025 that comprised of one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to subsection 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This is an offence which carries up to 25 years prison time.
Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm also carries a standard non-parole period of 7 years prison time. An SNPP is a guidepost or reference point for a sentencing judge, when determining the minimum term an offender should spend behind bars before being eligible to apply for release on parole.
NSW District Court Judge Philip Ingram determined that the objective seriousness of Skinner’s offending was at the “lower echelon of the middle range”. This was based on the extent of the significant injuries, which weren’t life-threatening. The violent assault was found not to be premeditated, apart from being armed with a machete. And Skinner stopped after the single blow.
His Honour found that Bingham had recruited Skinner for the act, which served to mitigate, or lower his sentence, whilst further finding that the man’s criminal record was not an aggravating factor, or an issue that resulted in a sentence being more severe, although his priors certainly didn’t lend themselves to any leniency, and the offender was on conditional release at time of offending.
Skinner also had a challenging upbringing. His father died early. Not long after starting high school, he was put in a program for students with “conduct disorder”, and he was expelled three years later. He started drinking and taking cannabis at around 12 years old. He was periodically detained in juvenile detention centres in his teens and since turning 18, he has been in and out of gaol.
The offender was further diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2023. He had been on medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. And neuropsychologist Dr Sarah Griffith assessed that he has extremely low intellectual functioning, he may have ADHD, and she assessed that Skinner’s risk of reoffending could be reduced via tailored psychological therapy.
Further, it was found that Skinner’s deprived childhood invoked the Bugmy principles: established in the 2013 High Court decision Bugmy versus The Queen, which meant his moral culpability was reduced. The 2010 NSW Criminal Court of Appeal (NSWCCA) established De La Rosa factors were also triggered, which serve to reduce culpability when an offender has a mental illness or disability.
The Henry principles were too invoked in the Skinner case. These are based on the 1999 NSWCCA authority R versus Henry, which found that drug use and dependence is not an excuse for crime. However, this principle applies to self-induced dependency, which occurs when the individual makes the choice at “a rational age”. But addiction beginning in childhood does reduce culpability.
Judge Ingram then sentenced Skinner to 7 years, 1 month and 15 days prison time on 11 April 2025. Non-parole was set at 4 years and 8 months. And this sentence reflected a 5 percent sentencing discount in respect of the offender’s early guilty plea.
Matters on appeal
Todd Skinner then appealed his sentence to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal on 29 July 2026. He did so based on the sole ground that his sentence was manifestly excessive, which means the punishment is so long it falls outside of what is considered reasonable for the crime that has been committed.
NSWCCA Justice Andrew Coleman explained that the principles set out in the 2017 NSWCCA case Obeid versus R are those governing when a sentence can be ruled manifestly excessive, and the first point is that a sentence is not considered excessive simply because it is markedly lower than penalties imposed in similar cases.
Rather, it’s only progressed when a sentence is such an anomaly that it portends a misapplication of principle or error, and this is not to the point where sentencing discretion might have been applied differently. The authority further maintains that sentencing judges do have a lot of flexibility when handing down a sentence correctly, and the appellant has to prove that it is “plainly unjust”.
Skinner’s defence argued that the pre-discount starting point of the sentence, which was 7 years and 6 months time could not be reconciled with the determination that objective seriousness lie at the lower end of midrange, while the prosecution highlighted that the maximum penalty applying to the crime was a steep 25 years, which is accompanied by a 7 year standard non-parole period.
“Accepting the heavy practical burden placed on an applicant who relies on a ground of manifest excess, I consider that the sentence imposed was unreasonable and plainly unjust in all the circumstances of this case,” Justice Coleman then determined, and added that this meant the ground had been made out.
His Honour explained that Judge Ingram had found that Skinner’s moral culpability was reduced by three difference sets of principles: those in Bugmy, De La Rosa and Henry. This was on top of a 5 percent sentencing discount. And further to this, the sentencing judge too found that Skinner’s sentence should be reduced because of his mental and physical health conditions.
And in considering this long list of mitigating factors, Justice Coleman said that in his opinion, “the sentence imposed is of such severity it discloses an error in the sentencing judge failing to appropriately take into account the cumulation of these matters which ought to have led to a more lenient sentence”.
Resentencing necessitated
“The unchallenged finding of the sentencing judge is that the offending is at the lower end of the midrange of objective seriousness,” said Justice Coleman, after he determined that resentencing was required. “That reflects the level of violence and the use of the machete by the applicant. It also takes into account that the applicant was recruited into committing the offence by Bingham.”
As for aggravating factors that served to make the new sentence more severe, his Honour considered that Skinner committed his offence whilst on parole. In terms of mitigating factors that reduced his penalty, the justice took into account the man’s deprived childhood, the Bugmy, De La Rosa and Henry principles, the offender’s mental and physical conditions, and his early guilty plea.
On 9 September 2026, Justice Coleman allowed the appeal, quashed the April 2025 sentence and resentenced Skinner to 5 years, 8 months and 11 days prison time, with non-parole set at 3 years and 6 months. And NSWCCA Justices Peter Hamill and Belinda Rigg agreed with their colleague’s orders.
