R v Daley [2003] NSWCCA 109

R v Daley [2003] NSWCCA 109

The minimal utilitarian value of the guilty pleas, given their late entry, followed by attempts to withdraw, the seriousness and multiplicity of offences, and protection of the public justify no reduction in sentence. Even though the sentencing judge proceeded on an incorrect principle (in light of R v Sharma), s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act requires dismissal unless a less severe sentence is warranted, which in this case is not.

Parties
Applicant: Anthony James Daley; Respondent: Respondent / Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Leave to Appeal Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Aggravated Sexual Assault, Armed Robbery, Detain for Advantage, Plea of Guilty, Utilitarian Value of Pleas, Discount for Guilty Pleas, Application to Withdraw Pleas
Criminal Law Sentencing Aggravated Sexual Assault Armed Robbery Detain for Advantage Plea of Guilty Utilitarian Value of Pleas Discount for Guilty Pleas +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony James Daley

Applicant

Respondent / Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Leave to Appeal Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding no discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty
  2. 2 Whether a less severe sentence is warranted given the circumstances of the pleas
  3. 3 Appropriate approach to utilitarian value of pleas in NSW after recent case law

Ratio Decidendi

The minimal utilitarian value of the guilty pleas, given their late entry, followed by attempts to withdraw, the seriousness and multiplicity of offences, and protection of the public justify no reduction in sentence. Even though the sentencing judge proceeded on an incorrect principle (in light of R v Sharma), s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act requires dismissal unless a less severe sentence is warranted, which in this case is not.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed