REGINA v. PARKER [2003] NSWCCA 270

REGINA v. PARKER [2003] NSWCCA 270

Leave was refused because no sentencing error was shown. The fact of accumulation had not been put to the sentencing judge as a basis for special circumstances; the applicant's parole status at the time of offending was properly treated as aggravating and would have been contradictory to treat it as a special circumstance; the sentencing judge was not satisfied of real prospects of rehabilitation; and the applicant's co-operation with police had been taken into account in mitigation. Section 44(2) did not prohibit a non-parole period greater than 75%.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'take and Drive a Conveyance Without Consent' 'larceny' 'form 1 Offences' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'take and Drive a Conveyance Without Consent' 'larceny' 'form 1 Offences' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a non-parole period greater than 75% of the term of the sentence under s.44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).' "Whether total or partial accumulation of sentences, and the applicant's recent prior imprisonment and parole status, should have been treated as special circumstances." "Whether the applicant's co-operation with police affected the proper setting of the non-parole period."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because no sentencing error was shown. The fact of accumulation had not been put to the sentencing judge as a basis for special circumstances; the applicant's parole status at the time of offending was properly treated as aggravating and would have been contradictory to treat it as a special circumstance; the sentencing judge was not satisfied of real prospects of rehabilitation; and the applicant's co-operation with police had been taken into account in mitigation. Section 44(2) did not prohibit a non-parole period greater than 75%.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.']