R v Kollas and Mitchell [2002] NSWCCA 491

R v Kollas and Mitchell [2002] NSWCCA 491

Kollas’ sentence was manifestly inadequate, failing to adequately reflect objective seriousness, need for general and specific deterrence, and proper accumulation upon prior sentence for offending while on bail; Crown appeal allowed and sentence increased. Mitchell’s sentence was not excessive nor did it produce unjustifiable disparity considering his criminal history and the objective and subjective circumstances; leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Respondent (kollas); Applicant in Lower Court: Robbie Ashley Kollas; Applicant (mitchell); Respondent in Lower Court: Nathan James Mitchell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Crown Appeal (kollas) and Severity Appeal (mitchell)
Outcome
Crown appeal (Kollas) allowed; sentence quashed and increased. Mitchell: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeals Against Inadequacy of Sentence, Sentencing, Parity of Sentences, Aggravated Entry, Robbery in Company, Plea of Guilty
Criminal Law Appeals Against Inadequacy of Sentence Sentencing Parity of Sentences Aggravated Entry Robbery in Company Plea of Guilty

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Robbie Ashley Kollas

Respondent (kollas); Applicant in Lower Court

Nathan James Mitchell

Applicant (mitchell); Respondent in Lower Court

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Crown Appeal (kollas) and Severity Appeal (mitchell)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on Kollas was manifestly inadequate (Crown appeal)
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed on Mitchell was manifestly excessive or gave rise to a justifiable sense of disparity

Ratio Decidendi

Kollas’ sentence was manifestly inadequate, failing to adequately reflect objective seriousness, need for general and specific deterrence, and proper accumulation upon prior sentence for offending while on bail; Crown appeal allowed and sentence increased. Mitchell’s sentence was not excessive nor did it produce unjustifiable disparity considering his criminal history and the objective and subjective circumstances; leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal (Kollas) allowed; sentence quashed and increased. Mitchell: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Kollas: Sentence of imprisonment for five years and six months from 16 March 2002 to 15 September 2007, partially concurrent and partially cumulative with pre-existing sentence; non-parole period three years and three months from 16 March 2002 to 15 June 2005.
  • Mitchell: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.