R-v-Mangolini [1999] NSWCCA 155

R-v-Mangolini [1999] NSWCCA 155

Although the objective seriousness of the offences meant the original sentences were not excessive in themselves, appellate intervention was warranted because the sentencing judge failed to have regard to the accumulation of the new sentences upon sentences already being served and therefore failed to give effect to the intended finding of special circumstances and extended supervision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed; sentences on all three counts quashed and substituted sentences imposed.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'possess Implements of Safe Breaking' 'steal Conveyance' 'special Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality' 'parole Eligibility']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'possess Implements of Safe Breaking' 'steal Conveyance' 'special Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality' 'parole Eligibility']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed by the District Court were excessive having regard to the objective seriousness of the offences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give effect to special circumstances because the sentence structure did not account for accumulation with sentences already being served.' 'Whether the accumulation of sentences required adjustment to ensure the overall sentence was appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the objective seriousness of the offences meant the original sentences were not excessive in themselves, appellate intervention was warranted because the sentencing judge failed to have regard to the accumulation of the new sentences upon sentences already being served and therefore failed to give effect to the intended finding of special circumstances and extended supervision.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed; sentences on all three counts quashed and substituted sentences imposed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed.' 'The sentences on all three counts are quashed.' 'On the first count, break, enter and steal, a sentence of penal servitude is imposed comprising a minimum term commencing on 5 September 2000 and expiring on 7 August 2001 and an additional term of eighteen...