R v Dinos [1999] NSWCCA 208

R v Dinos [1999] NSWCCA 208

No sentencing error was shown. The arson was objectively very serious and created extreme potential danger; the sentencing judge took into account the applicant's prior good character, absence of prior convictions, subjective circumstances and extraordinary delay, and identified a reduction from the sentence otherwise considered appropriate. The Judicial Commission statistics were based on too small a sample and lacked offence details, so they did not demonstrate manifest excess or error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['arson' 'fraudulent Insurance Claim' 'sentencing' 'manifest Excess' 'delay in Criminal Proceedings' 'judicial Commission Sentencing Statistics']
['criminal Law'] ['arson' 'fraudulent Insurance Claim' 'sentencing' 'manifest Excess' 'delay in Criminal Proceedings' 'judicial Commission Sentencing Statistics']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating the arson as creating extreme potential danger to the community.' "Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive having regard to the applicant's age, prior good character, lack of prior convictions, health and other subjective circumstances." 'Whether extraordinary delay between the offences and trial and sentencing was given adequate mitigating weight.' 'What weight should be given to Judicial Commission sentencing statistics for offences under Crimes Act 1900, s 197(b).']

Ratio Decidendi

No sentencing error was shown. The arson was objectively very serious and created extreme potential danger; the sentencing judge took into account the applicant's prior good character, absence of prior convictions, subjective circumstances and extraordinary delay, and identified a reduction from the sentence otherwise considered appropriate. The Judicial Commission statistics were based on too small a sample and lacked offence details, so they did not demonstrate manifest excess or error.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']