R v Penman [2001] NSWCCA 308

R v Penman [2001] NSWCCA 308

The head sentences were not manifestly excessive because the offences were serious, the applicant had relevant prior offending, the offences were committed while recognisances were current, and general and specific deterrence were required. However, special circumstances existed due to the applicant's youth, this being his first significant imprisonment, evidence of improved prospects and rehabilitation, the benefit of parole supervision, his responsible conduct in custody, and his insulin-dependent diabetes, warranting reduction of the non-parole period to nine months.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; non-parole period quashed and replaced with a non-parole period of 9 months.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'larceny' 'take a Conveyance Without Consent' 'manifest Excess' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'recognisance' 'deterrence' 'rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'larceny' 'take a Conveyance Without Consent' 'manifest Excess' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'recognisance' 'deterrence' 'rehabilitation']

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 Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences of 16 months imprisonment with non-parole periods of 12 months for larceny and taking a conveyance without consent were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether special circumstances should have been found justifying a departure from the 75 percent ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The head sentences were not manifestly excessive because the offences were serious, the applicant had relevant prior offending, the offences were committed while recognisances were current, and general and specific deterrence were required. However, special circumstances existed due to the applicant's youth, this being his first significant imprisonment, evidence of improved prospects and rehabilitation, the benefit of parole supervision, his responsible conduct in custody, and his insulin-dependent diabetes, warranting reduction of the non-parole period to nine months.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; non-parole period quashed and replaced with a non-parole period of 9 months.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Non-parole period quashed.' 'In lieu thereof a non-parole period imposed of 9 months from 20/11/2000, to expire on 19/8/2001.' 'Applicant to be released on parole on 20 August 2001 subject to such conditions as the Parole Board may specify.']