REGINA v. HOLMES & RATU [2003] NSWCCA 258

REGINA v. HOLMES & RATU [2003] NSWCCA 258

Although the matters relied on by the applicants were capable of constituting special circumstances and of shortening the non-parole periods, the sentencing judge did not fail to consider them for that purpose and did not unreasonably fail to find special circumstances. The determination remained a discretionary judgment, neither the 16 year head sentences nor the 12 year non-parole periods were shown or conceded to be manifestly excessive, and no basis for interference under s.6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed After Pleas of Guilty to Murder
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess' 'general Deterrence' 'appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['murder' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess' 'general Deterrence' '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

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed After Pleas of Guilty to Murder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to find particular matters amounted to special circumstances justifying shorter non-parole periods.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider whether shorter non-parole periods could be imposed.' 'Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal should interfere under s.6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 where neither the head sentences nor non-parole periods were conceded to be manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the matters relied on by the applicants were capable of constituting special circumstances and of shortening the non-parole periods, the sentencing judge did not fail to consider them for that purpose and did not unreasonably fail to find special circumstances. The determination remained a discretionary judgment, neither the 16 year head sentences nor the 12 year non-parole periods were shown or conceded to be manifestly excessive, and no basis for interference under s.6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 was established.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeals are dismissed.']