Nurzynski v The Queen [2000] FCA 1860

Nurzynski v The Queen [2000] FCA 1860

No sentencing error was demonstrated. The reference to leniency did not of itself constitute error; the failure expressly to mention a Drugs of Dependence Act treatment order did not show failure to consider that option; counsel at trial had not sought an assessment order; the sentencing judge's remarks showed he considered the appellant's drug history and prospects of reform but regarded imprisonment as appropriate; it was not apparent that the appellant came within the treatment provisions; and the reference to hoodwinking the jury was not shown to have increased the sentence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and sentence confirmed.
Legal Topics
['attempted Armed Robbery' 'severity Appeal' 'drug Dependency Treatment Order' 'sentence of Imprisonment' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['attempted Armed Robbery' 'severity Appeal' 'drug Dependency Treatment Order' 'sentence of Imprisonment' '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 Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider a non-custodial sentence incorporating a treatment order under s 124 of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT).' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider all other available penalties before imposing imprisonment as required by s 429C of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).' "Whether the sentencing judge's reference to leniency indicated sentencing error." "Whether the sentencing judge's reference to the appellant attempting to hoodwink the jury showed that sentence was increased because the appellant pleaded not guilty or because of his behaviour in court contrary to s 429B of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)."]

Ratio Decidendi

No sentencing error was demonstrated. The reference to leniency did not of itself constitute error; the failure expressly to mention a Drugs of Dependence Act treatment order did not show failure to consider that option; counsel at trial had not sought an assessment order; the sentencing judge's remarks showed he considered the appellant's drug history and prospects of reform but regarded imprisonment as appropriate; it was not apparent that the appellant came within the treatment provisions; and the reference to hoodwinking the jury was not shown to have increased the sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed and the sentence be confirmed.' 'There be no order as to costs.']