R v Trindall [2002] NSWCCA 364

R v Trindall [2002] NSWCCA 364

The Court had jurisdiction because the District Court orders were made in the sentencing process under Part 2 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and were within the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 definition of sentence, notwithstanding the failure to specify an adjourned date. Section 11 now supplies the relevant statutory power for a Griffiths-type remand and requires an adjournment to a specified date within 12 months. On the evidence of rehabilitation prospects, the sentencing judge's decision to grant the remand was open, but the matter had to be remitted so a hearing date before 12 December 2002 could be fixed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence/orders in Criminal Proceedings / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Matter remitted to the sentencing judge for fixing of a sentencing hearing date; otherwise appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['griffiths Remand' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 S.11' 'crown Sentence Appeal Jurisdiction' 'rehabilitation Before Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'bail Conditions']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure' 'bail'] ['griffiths Remand' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 S.11' 'crown Sentence Appeal Jurisdiction' 'rehabilitation Before Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'bail Conditions']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence/orders in Criminal Proceedings / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the Crown appeal because the District Court orders amounted to a sentence within the meaning of s.2 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by remanding the offender for rehabilitation without fixing a specified adjourned date within 12 months as required by s.11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether the Court should intervene in the grant of the remand other than to remit the matter for the fixing of a sentencing hearing date.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had jurisdiction because the District Court orders were made in the sentencing process under Part 2 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and were within the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 definition of sentence, notwithstanding the failure to specify an adjourned date. Section 11 now supplies the relevant statutory power for a Griffiths-type remand and requires an adjournment to a specified date within 12 months. On the evidence of rehabilitation prospects, the sentencing judge's decision to grant the remand was open, but the matter had to be remitted so a hearing date before 12 December 2002 could be fixed.

Court Disposition

Matter remitted to the sentencing judge for fixing of a sentencing hearing date; otherwise appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Remit this matter to the sentencing judge (Mahoney ADCJ) for the purpose of fixing a hearing date for the sentencing proceedings prior to 12 December 2002 and giving such other directions as shall seem fit.' 'Otherwise appeal dismissed.']