Tuesley v R [2021] NSWCCA 58

Tuesley v R [2021] NSWCCA 58

The sentencing judge did not err in declining to impose a non-parole period as the fixed term imposed was intended to equate to the non-parole period, and no error in principle was established. Any failure to indicate a non-parole period for the indicative sentence did not affect the sentence. The aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the offences and the applicant's criminal history.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of NSW to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'aggregate Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'manifest Excess' 'assault Police Officer' 'possession of Prohibited Drug']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'aggregate Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'manifest Excess' 'assault Police Officer' 'possession of Prohibited Drug']

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 / Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of NSW to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in declining to fix a non-parole period' 'Whether the sentencing judge took into account irrelevant considerations and failed to take into account relevant considerations' 'Whether the judge failed to indicate a non-parole period for the indicative sentence for the s 60(2) offence and failed to comply with s 54B(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in declining to impose a non-parole period as the fixed term imposed was intended to equate to the non-parole period, and no error in principle was established. Any failure to indicate a non-parole period for the indicative sentence did not affect the sentence. The aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the offences and the applicant's criminal history.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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