Regina v Kate Bolter [2002] NSWCCA 417

Regina v Kate Bolter [2002] NSWCCA 417

The sentencing judge did not err in treating the break, enter and steal offences as objectively serious, including because they invaded victims' homes and affected the victims' security beyond the monetary value of property taken. The references to aggravation were properly understood as referring to the applicant's offending while on parole and, for the second offence, while on bail, not as punishment for more serious offences. The District Court was entitled to sentence according to its jurisdiction once the prosecution proceeded on indictment. The guilty pleas, subjective circumstances, statutory sentencing alternatives and criminal antecedents were not shown to have been mishandled....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Sentence Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'manifest Excess' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'aggravating Circumstances' 'antecedent Criminal History' 'full Time Imprisonment']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'manifest Excess' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'aggravating Circumstances' 'antecedent Criminal History' 'full Time Imprisonment']

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentences imposed reflected the applicant's criminality for each offence." 'Whether the sentencing judge breached the principles in De Simoni v The Queen and Ryan v The Queen by punishing the applicant for more serious offences than those for which she stood for sentence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by not taking into account that most offences of this type are dealt with in the Local Court.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed properly to take into account the applicant's early guilty pleas." "Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's subjective features." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to apply correctly the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 when imposing full-time imprisonment.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in treating the break, enter and steal offences as objectively serious, including because they invaded victims' homes and affected the victims' security beyond the monetary value of property taken. The references to aggravation were properly understood as referring to the applicant's offending while on parole and, for the second offence, while on bail, not as punishment for more serious offences. The District Court was entitled to sentence according to its jurisdiction once the prosecution proceeded on indictment. The guilty pleas, subjective circumstances, statutory sentencing alternatives and criminal antecedents were not shown to have been mishandled....

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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