AE v THE QUEEN [2010] NSWCCA 203

AE v THE QUEEN [2010] NSWCCA 203

The appeal was allowed in part because the sentencing judge used the standard non-parole period as an indication of Parliament's view of the seriousness of the offence and thereby as a factor supporting a higher sentence, although that standard non-parole period was inapplicable under s 54D(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) because of the applicant's age. Given the applicant was 15 at the time of the offence, a lesser non-parole period was warranted, although the total sentence remained unchanged. The other asserted errors did not warrant intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / 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; original non-parole period and balance of term set aside and replaced with a shorter non-parole period and longer balance of term, with the total sentence unchanged.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company With Wounding' 'juvenile Offender Sentencing Principles' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'closed Court and Open Justice']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' "children's Criminal Proceedings"] ['robbery in Company With Wounding' 'juvenile Offender Sentencing Principles' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'closed Court and Open Justice']

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 New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider the principles of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider the evidence of Ms Bromley, a chaplain at Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by taking into account the standard non-parole period.' 'Whether the sentence was out of proportion to the sentences imposed on co-offenders.' 'Whether the hearing should proceed in open court despite s 10 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part because the sentencing judge used the standard non-parole period as an indication of Parliament's view of the seriousness of the offence and thereby as a factor supporting a higher sentence, although that standard non-parole period was inapplicable under s 54D(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) because of the applicant's age. Given the applicant was 15 at the time of the offence, a lesser non-parole period was warranted, although the total sentence remained unchanged. The other asserted errors did not warrant intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; original non-parole period and balance of term set aside and replaced with a shorter non-parole period and longer balance of term, with the total sentence unchanged.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the applicant to appeal against the sentence imposed on him in the District Court on 26 June 2009.' 'Allow the appeal in part and set aside the non-parole period of three years and the balance of term of two years set by the sentencing judge.' 'In lieu thereof, set a non-parole period of two years...