Hawat v R [2020] NSWCCA 121

Hawat v R [2020] NSWCCA 121

Reading the sentencing remarks fairly and as a whole, the sentencing judge did not conflate the R v Henry guideline with an assessment of objective seriousness and did not use the guideline range as an impermissible starting point. The reference to objective seriousness was inapt, but the judge was comparing the present offences with the common features of the Henry guideline and made no finding of objective seriousness affected by subjective factors. The reference to a starting point was immediately followed by a correct statement that the guideline was not a straitjacket and could operate only as a check, guide, indicator or sounding board. The single proposed ground of appeal therefore...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery Whilst Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'r V Henry Guideline Judgment' 'objective Seriousness' 'sentencing Discretion' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['robbery Whilst Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'r V Henry Guideline Judgment' 'objective Seriousness' 'sentencing Discretion' 'leave to 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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by conflating the R v Henry guideline with the assessment of objective seriousness of the offences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by using the R v Henry guideline range as a starting point for the sentencing exercise.']

Ratio Decidendi

Reading the sentencing remarks fairly and as a whole, the sentencing judge did not conflate the R v Henry guideline with an assessment of objective seriousness and did not use the guideline range as an impermissible starting point. The reference to objective seriousness was inapt, but the judge was comparing the present offences with the common features of the Henry guideline and made no finding of objective seriousness affected by subjective factors. The reference to a starting point was immediately followed by a correct statement that the guideline was not a straitjacket and could operate only as a check, guide, indicator or sounding board. The single proposed ground of appeal therefore...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']