Regina v Anissa Maude Stanley [2003] NSWCCA 233

Regina v Anissa Maude Stanley [2003] NSWCCA 233

The sentencing judge did not err in using Henry for general guidance because assault with intent to rob in company is a robbery-type offence under section 97 and the relevant Henry considerations were applicable. The applicant's Aboriginal disadvantage, youth and special circumstances were considered on limited evidence; the finding that she was the predominant moving party was open; her role and prior record distinguished her from co-offenders; and the objective seriousness of the planned, unprovoked public assault with intent to rob meant the sentence of 3 years with a 2 year non-parole period was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Substantive Sentence Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['assault With Intent to Rob in Company' 'guideline Judgments' 'aboriginality and Social Disadvantage in Sentencing' 'youth in Sentencing' 'parity and Disparity Between Co Offenders' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['assault With Intent to Rob in Company' 'guideline Judgments' 'aboriginality and Social Disadvantage in Sentencing' 'youth in Sentencing' 'parity and Disparity Between Co Offenders' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess']

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 Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Substantive Sentence Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 to an offence of assault with intent to rob whilst in company.' "Whether factors of disadvantage arising from the applicant's Aboriginal background were inadequately reflected in the sentence." "Whether the applicant's youth was inadequately reflected in the sentence." 'Whether the sentence was so disproportionate to sentences imposed on co-offenders as to give rise to a reasonable sense of grievance.' 'Whether characterising the applicant as a ring-leader was a finding not reasonably open on the evidence.' 'Whether special circumstances were inadequately reflected in the sentencing outcome.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in using Henry for general guidance because assault with intent to rob in company is a robbery-type offence under section 97 and the relevant Henry considerations were applicable. The applicant's Aboriginal disadvantage, youth and special circumstances were considered on limited evidence; the finding that she was the predominant moving party was open; her role and prior record distinguished her from co-offenders; and the objective seriousness of the planned, unprovoked public assault with intent to rob meant the sentence of 3 years with a 2 year non-parole period was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence be granted.' 'The appeal against sentence be dismissed.']