Regina v Webster [2005] NSWCCA 110

Regina v Webster [2005] NSWCCA 110

The sentences, although at the higher end of the range, were not manifestly excessive because the applicant's repeated similar offending over a lengthy period, much of it while on bail or parole, his substantial criminal history, the need for personal and general deterrence, the totality of the criminality, and the proper allowance for pleas, special circumstances and parole supervision justified the effective head sentence and non-parole period. No error was shown in the sentencing judge's treatment of maximum penalties, delay, Form 1 matters, rehabilitation prospects or comparative sentencing material.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2005
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
['break, Enter and Steal' 'larceny' 'malicious Damage to Property' 'manifest Excess' 'conditional Liberty' 'delay in Sentencing' 'form 1 Offences' 'totality' 'drug Rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'larceny' 'malicious Damage to Property' 'manifest Excess' 'conditional Liberty' 'delay in Sentencing' 'form 1 Offences' 'totality' 'drug Rehabilitation']

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 sentences imposed for multiple offences were manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge's notional starting points were too high having regard to the objective seriousness of the offences and the maximum penalty for s112(1) Crimes Act 1900 offences." 'Whether delay in charging and sentencing disadvantaged the applicant and required a lesser sentence under totality principles.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating the Form 1 offences as aggravating the principal offence.' "Whether the applicant's prospects of drug rehabilitation and sentencing statistics required a lower sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences, although at the higher end of the range, were not manifestly excessive because the applicant's repeated similar offending over a lengthy period, much of it while on bail or parole, his substantial criminal history, the need for personal and general deterrence, the totality of the criminality, and the proper allowance for pleas, special circumstances and parole supervision justified the effective head sentence and non-parole period. No error was shown in the sentencing judge's treatment of maximum penalties, delay, Form 1 matters, rehabilitation prospects or comparative sentencing material.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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