Ta v R [2009] NSWCCA 196
The offences did not form part of one criminal enterprise but were three separate, planned, and coordinated offences. The degree of partial accumulation imposed was appropriate and no error by the sentencing judge was established. The sentences were not manifestly excessive, and leave to appeal should be refused.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 July 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal against sentences is refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['robbery Whilst Armed' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'concurrency' 'sentencing Procedure']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the offences formed part of the same criminal enterprise for purposes of concurrency and accumulation of sentences' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing partial accumulation and manifestly excessive sentences' 'Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted']
Ratio Decidendi
The offences did not form part of one criminal enterprise but were three separate, planned, and coordinated offences. The degree of partial accumulation imposed was appropriate and no error by the sentencing judge was established. The sentences were not manifestly excessive, and leave to appeal should be refused.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal against sentences is refused.
Orders
- ['Refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by the District Court on 15 August 2008.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment