AN v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 43

AN v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 43

The sentencing judge did not err in partly accumulating the sentences for counts 2 and 3 because, although they formed part of an unbroken course of conduct, each involved serious and separate criminal acts and it was open to find that the sentence for either count could not encompass the criminality of both. The total effective sentence was heavy but not crushing and was not outside the legitimate range of sentencing discretion, particularly given the gravity of the offending and the applicant's fundamental role as lookout in joint criminal enterprises.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['totality' 'partial Accumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'aggravated Robbery' 'robbery in Company' 'aggravated Break and Enter' 'role as Lookout']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['totality' 'partial Accumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'aggravated Robbery' 'robbery in Company' 'aggravated Break and Enter' 'role as Lookout']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the principle of totality by partly accumulating the sentences on counts 2 and 3 rather than making them concurrent.' 'Whether the sentences imposed, including the total effective sentence, were manifestly excessive or crushing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in partly accumulating the sentences for counts 2 and 3 because, although they formed part of an unbroken course of conduct, each involved serious and separate criminal acts and it was open to find that the sentence for either count could not encompass the criminality of both. The total effective sentence was heavy but not crushing and was not outside the legitimate range of sentencing discretion, particularly given the gravity of the offending and the applicant's fundamental role as lookout in joint criminal enterprises.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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