R v Chandler; Chandler v R [2012] NSWCCA 135

R v Chandler; Chandler v R [2012] NSWCCA 135

The Crown appeal failed because, although the sentences were at the bottom of the available range and the sentencing judge erred in finding that adequate treatment would not be available in custody, the psychiatric evidence supported findings that Mr Chandler's longstanding mental illness substantially contributed to the offending and reduced moral culpability and the weight of deterrence; the individual and aggregate sentences were therefore open and not manifestly inadequate. Mr Chandler's appeal failed because there was no objective basis for a justifiable sense of grievance: Ms Leota-Lu pleaded guilty, gave assistance and received discounts, was charged with different and less serious...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence and Offender Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed by Armitage DCJ on 8 November 2011
Outcome
Crown appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal granted to the applicant, but the appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery and Assault With Intent to Rob' 'mental Illness in Sentencing' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'accumulation and Totality' 'parity Principle' 'prosecutorial Discretion' 'co Offenders Sentenced by Different Judges']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['robbery and Assault With Intent to Rob' 'mental Illness in Sentencing' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'accumulation and Totality' 'parity Principle' 'prosecutorial Discretion' 'co Offenders Sentenced by Different Judges']

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 and Offender Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed by Armitage DCJ on 8 November 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in his approach to the applicant's mental illness so that the individual and aggregate sentences were manifestly inadequate." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to adequately accumulate the sentences.' 'Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance arising from disparity between his sentence and the sentence imposed on his co-offender Susanna Leota-Lu.' "Whether the parity principle required the sentencing judge or appellate court to go behind findings made by the earlier sentencing judge in the co-offender's proceedings." 'Whether alleged differential prosecutorial treatment of co-offenders charged with different offences engaged the parity principle on the facts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown appeal failed because, although the sentences were at the bottom of the available range and the sentencing judge erred in finding that adequate treatment would not be available in custody, the psychiatric evidence supported findings that Mr Chandler's longstanding mental illness substantially contributed to the offending and reduced moral culpability and the weight of deterrence; the individual and aggregate sentences were therefore open and not manifestly inadequate. Mr Chandler's appeal failed because there was no objective basis for a justifiable sense of grievance: Ms Leota-Lu pleaded guilty, gave assistance and received discounts, was charged with different and less serious...

Court Disposition

Crown appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal granted to the applicant, but the appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal dismissed.' 'Grant leave to appeal to the applicant but dismiss the appeal.']