Connor v R [2005] NSWCCA 431

Connor v R [2005] NSWCCA 431

The sentencing judge erred by treating the applicant's early personal history as irrelevant rather than of reduced weight, and parity required intervention because Andrews, who committed an additional offence and otherwise was not relevantly distinguished for sentencing purposes, had been resentenced to the same effective sentence. The sentence on count 6 was therefore quashed and replaced to reduce the effective non parole period by six months and the overall sentence by eight months. The compensation direction was not oppressive or excessive merely because of impecuniosity or because the applicant was one of two co-offenders, but it had to be varied to prevent double compensation for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences and Compensation Direction From the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences on counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 confirmed; sentence on count 6 quashed and replaced; compensation direction varied.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Break Enter and Steal' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'subjective Circumstances in Sentencing' "compensation Directions Under the Victims' Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996"]
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'victims Compensation'] ['aggravated Break Enter and Steal' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'subjective Circumstances in Sentencing' "compensation Directions Under the Victims' Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996"]

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 Sentences and Compensation Direction From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by treating the applicant's early personal history as entirely irrelevant rather than of reduced weight." 'Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance after co-offender Stephen Martin Andrews was resentenced on appeal and received effectively the same sentence despite an additional offence.' 'Whether the compensation direction should be annulled or reduced because it was oppressive or excessive.' 'Whether the compensation direction should be varied to avoid double compensation where overlapping directions were made against co-offenders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by treating the applicant's early personal history as irrelevant rather than of reduced weight, and parity required intervention because Andrews, who committed an additional offence and otherwise was not relevantly distinguished for sentencing purposes, had been resentenced to the same effective sentence. The sentence on count 6 was therefore quashed and replaced to reduce the effective non parole period by six months and the overall sentence by eight months. The compensation direction was not oppressive or excessive merely because of impecuniosity or because the applicant was one of two co-offenders, but it had to be varied to prevent double compensation for...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences on counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 confirmed; sentence on count 6 quashed and replaced; compensation direction varied.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'The sentences imposed in respect of counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 confirmed.' 'The sentence imposed in respect of count 6 quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to a non parole period of three years commencing on 20 November 2003 and to expire on 19 November...