Fieldsend v R [2008] NSWCCA 202

Fieldsend v R [2008] NSWCCA 202

Although the individual sentences were within range, the sentencing judge erred in referring to a Form 1, in concluding without sufficient basis that the applicant had a leadership role or responsibility for involving others, and in the degree of accumulation and failure to take that accumulation into account under s44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The Court therefore intervened to restructure the accumulated sentences and increase the effective parole period to support rehabilitation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, sentences for the four offences in the indictments quashed, and the applicant resentenced. The sentences imposed for the offences dealt with under s166 were not disturbed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'certificate Under S166 Criminal Procedure Act' 'rehabilitation' 'armed Robbery' 'domestic Violence Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'certificate Under S166 Criminal Procedure Act' 'rehabilitation' 'armed Robbery' 'domestic Violence Offences']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentence was crushing because of the degree of accumulation of sentences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by referring to a Form 1 when there was no Form 1.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating the applicant as having a leadership role in the hotel robbery.' "Whether the applicant's youth required a different sentencing approach." 'Whether the relationship between the total non-parole period and parole period should be adjusted to foster rehabilitation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the individual sentences were within range, the sentencing judge erred in referring to a Form 1, in concluding without sufficient basis that the applicant had a leadership role or responsibility for involving others, and in the degree of accumulation and failure to take that accumulation into account under s44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The Court therefore intervened to restructure the accumulated sentences and increase the effective parole period to support rehabilitation.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, sentences for the four offences in the indictments quashed, and the applicant resentenced. The sentences imposed for the offences dealt with under s166 were not disturbed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal.' 'Quash the sentences imposed for the four offences in the indictments.' 'In lieu of the sentence imposed for the first offence in the second indictment, sentence the applicant to imprisonment for a fixed term of three years nine months, which will be taken to have...