REGINA v S L D [2003] NSWCCA 310

REGINA v S L D [2003] NSWCCA 310

The sentencing judge was entitled and bound to evaluate the risk that the applicant would pose to society on release by reference to present facts proved on the evidence, without having to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant would re-offend. The judge did not make an impermissible binding forecast of distant future criminality, but structured the sentence with a non-parole period that left later assessment of risk to parole authorities. The asserted error was not made and the sentence was not shown to be manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal Concerning Murder / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'future Dangerousness' 'risk of Re Offending' 'standard of Proof in Sentencing' 'rehabilitation and Protection of the Community' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'children and Young Persons'] ['murder' 'future Dangerousness' 'risk of Re Offending' 'standard of Proof in Sentencing' 'rehabilitation and Protection of the Community' 'non Parole Period']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a sentencing judge must find beyond reasonable doubt that a prisoner will re-offend before taking future risk to society into account in fixing sentence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the applicant as posing a significant level of future dangerousness and a substantial risk of violent and sexual re-offending.' 'Whether the head sentence of 20 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled and bound to evaluate the risk that the applicant would pose to society on release by reference to present facts proved on the evidence, without having to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant would re-offend. The judge did not make an impermissible binding forecast of distant future criminality, but structured the sentence with a non-parole period that left later assessment of risk to parole authorities. The asserted error was not made and the sentence was not shown to be manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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