Robinson v R [2020] NSWCCA 41

Robinson v R [2020] NSWCCA 41

The sentence was manifestly excessive because, after finding the offending to be in the upper band of the middle range of objective seriousness, the sentencing judge assessed the appropriate sentence before the guilty plea discount at 8 years out of a 10 year maximum, leaving very little room for offences above the middle range but below the worst-case category. On re-sentencing, the Court adopted a 6 year starting point, applied the 25 per cent guilty plea discount, partially accumulated the sentence on the same basis as the sentencing judge, and imposed a sentence with a non-parole period of 2 years and 10 months and a balance of term of 1 year and 8 months dating from 23 January 2018.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Sentence
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal against sentence granted; District Court sentence quashed and applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['manifest Excess' 'fraud' 'obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception' 'objective Seriousness' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manifest Excess' 'fraud' 'obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception' 'objective Seriousness' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' '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 Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for obtaining a financial advantage by deception was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge's 8 year pre-discount assessment was excessive given the finding that the offence was in the upper band of the middle range of objective seriousness." 'What sentence should be imposed on re-sentencing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was manifestly excessive because, after finding the offending to be in the upper band of the middle range of objective seriousness, the sentencing judge assessed the appropriate sentence before the guilty plea discount at 8 years out of a 10 year maximum, leaving very little room for offences above the middle range but below the worst-case category. On re-sentencing, the Court adopted a 6 year starting point, applied the 25 per cent guilty plea discount, partially accumulated the sentence on the same basis as the sentencing judge, and imposed a sentence with a non-parole period of 2 years and 10 months and a balance of term of 1 year and 8 months dating from 23 January 2018.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal against sentence granted; District Court sentence quashed and applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal against sentence granted.' 'Sentence imposed in the District Court on 31 May 2018 is quashed and in lieu the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 10 months with a balance of term of the sentence of 1 year and 8 months.'...