Awit v R [2008] NSWCCA 321

Awit v R [2008] NSWCCA 321

It was open to the sentencing judge to find the applicant and V equivalent in objective criminality because both knowingly played substantial organising roles in serious offences, but the overall effective sentence imposed on the applicant was markedly disparate from V's after allowing for relevant differences and the manner of accumulation required reduction of the sentence on count 4. The special circumstances finding was adequately reflected by a three-year parole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; sentence on count 4 quashed and replaced.
Legal Topics
['conspiracy' 'malicious Damage by Fire' 'malicious Infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['conspiracy' 'malicious Damage by Fire' 'malicious Infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant's level in the offending hierarchy was equal to that of his co-offender V." "Whether disparity between the overall effective sentences imposed on V and the applicant required reduction of the applicant's sentence." "Whether the sentence imposed adequately reflected the sentencing judge's finding of special circumstances."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the sentencing judge to find the applicant and V equivalent in objective criminality because both knowingly played substantial organising roles in serious offences, but the overall effective sentence imposed on the applicant was markedly disparate from V's after allowing for relevant differences and the manner of accumulation required reduction of the sentence on count 4. The special circumstances finding was adequately reflected by a three-year parole period.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; sentence on count 4 quashed and replaced.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Allow the appeal in part.' 'Quash the sentence on count 4 and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant on count 4 to imprisonment for a non parole period of four years commencing on 8 December 2005 and expiring on 7 December 2009 with a further period of imprisonment of three years to...