A103 v R [2015] NSWCCA 210

A103 v R [2015] NSWCCA 210

Although the alleged specific sentencing errors were not established, the original sentence was manifestly excessive. The starting point, after allowing for the 15% guilty plea discount, was unduly severe for serious property offences committed at night in closed premises without violence against any person. The sentence was also well above the usual range shown by comparable cases, and the sentencing process miscarried. On resentencing, the applicant's substantial post-sentence assistance to authorities justified a combined discount of about 40%, resulting in an aggregate sentence with a non-parole period of 4 years and a balance of term of 2 years.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Sentences passed at first instance quashed. Applicant resentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and a balance of term of 2 years.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Breaking, Entering and Stealing' 'manifest Excess' 'specific Sentencing Error' 'parity With Co Offenders' 'special Circumstances' 'remorse' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'assistance to Authorities' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Breaking, Entering and Stealing' 'manifest Excess' 'specific Sentencing Error' 'parity With Co Offenders' 'special Circumstances' 'remorse' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'assistance to Authorities' 'form 1 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 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether specific sentencing errors were established in relation to special circumstances, remorse, the applicant's role, coercion, and the sentencing judge's reference to periodic detention rather than an intensive correction order." 'Whether the total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether it was necessary to deal with the parity ground.' "What sentence should be imposed on re-exercise of the sentencing discretion, including the applicant's assistance to authorities."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the alleged specific sentencing errors were not established, the original sentence was manifestly excessive. The starting point, after allowing for the 15% guilty plea discount, was unduly severe for serious property offences committed at night in closed premises without violence against any person. The sentence was also well above the usual range shown by comparable cases, and the sentencing process miscarried. On resentencing, the applicant's substantial post-sentence assistance to authorities justified a combined discount of about 40%, resulting in an aggregate sentence with a non-parole period of 4 years and a balance of term of 2 years.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Sentences passed at first instance quashed. Applicant resentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and a balance of term of 2 years.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted.' 'The appeal be allowed.' 'The sentences passed at first instance be quashed and, in lieu thereof, the applicant be sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 14 August 2011 and expiring on 13 August 2015 and a balance of term of 2...