R v OHAR [2004] NSWCCA 252

R v OHAR [2004] NSWCCA 252

Judge Milson took account of statutory factors but failed to provide adequate reasons for declining a non-parole period and why the nine-month sentence was selected. However, in light of the applicant's record and statutory maxima, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and no greater than the Court itself would impose, so the appeal must be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'drug Court' 'totality' 'appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'drug Court' 'totality' 'appeal Against Sentence']

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 Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive' 'Whether Judge Milson gave adequate recognition to time spent in custody and quasi-custody' 'Application of section 12 of the Drug Court Act 1998' 'Whether there were errors in reasons, including failure to set out reasons for declining a non-parole period']

Ratio Decidendi

Judge Milson took account of statutory factors but failed to provide adequate reasons for declining a non-parole period and why the nine-month sentence was selected. However, in light of the applicant's record and statutory maxima, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and no greater than the Court itself would impose, so the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal is dismissed.']