Regina v Clissold (Revised to include second counsel) [2002] NSWCCA 356

Regina v Clissold (Revised to include second counsel) [2002] NSWCCA 356

The sentencing judge followed the statutory scheme in s 44 by determining the minimum period required to be spent in custody, while bearing in mind the three quarters rule. Section 44 did not require the judge to fix a non-parole period equal to three quarters of the total sentence merely because the special circumstance was partial accumulation. The individual sentences, the partial accumulation and the overall 10-year period before parole eligibility were reasonable and within range, so no sentencing error was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['manslaughter' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'non Parole Period' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'special Circumstances' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 S 44' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manslaughter' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'non Parole Period' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'special Circumstances' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 S 44' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence']

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 / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing a non-parole period of eight years for manslaughter, producing eligibility for release on parole after 10 years overall.' 'Whether, where total or partial accumulation of sentences is relied on as a special circumstance, s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 requires or generally requires the non-parole period to be three quarters of the total sentence.' 'Whether the sentences and partial accumulation were within the permissible range.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge followed the statutory scheme in s 44 by determining the minimum period required to be spent in custody, while bearing in mind the three quarters rule. Section 44 did not require the judge to fix a non-parole period equal to three quarters of the total sentence merely because the special circumstance was partial accumulation. The individual sentences, the partial accumulation and the overall 10-year period before parole eligibility were reasonable and within range, so no sentencing error was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']