R-v-CASSAR [1999] NSWCCA 152

R-v-CASSAR [1999] NSWCCA 152

The sentencing judge erred in refusing to alter the sentence after being informed the applicant had not committed the offence while on parole. That error alone required the appellate court to intervene. Despite similarities in offending with the co-offender, differences in antecedents, absence of rehabilitation evidence, and lack of special circumstances justified a more severe overall sentence for the applicant. The unlawful supervision order on parole was also set aside.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant/appellant: Charles Michael Cassar
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted and sentence appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Appeal Against Sentence, Parity Principle, Protective Custody, Drug Offences
Criminal Law Sentencing Appeal Against Sentence Parity Principle Protective Custody Drug Offences

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Charles Michael Cassar

Applicant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant warranted interference due to error and parity with the co-offender's sentence
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred regarding the applicant's parole status
  3. 3 Whether the disparity between the sentences of the applicant and co-offender amounted to a miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in refusing to alter the sentence after being informed the applicant had not committed the offence while on parole. That error alone required the appellate court to intervene. Despite similarities in offending with the co-offender, differences in antecedents, absence of rehabilitation evidence, and lack of special circumstances justified a more severe overall sentence for the applicant. The unlawful supervision order on parole was also set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted and sentence appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Sentence imposed by the District Court is quashed, as are directions about supervision on parole.
  • In lieu of the original sentence, the appellant is sentenced to penal servitude for ten years: a minimum term of seven years and six months (16 June 1997 to 15 December 2004) and an additional term of two years and six months (16 December 2004 to 15 June 2007).