Ngati v R [2018] NSWCCA 32

Ngati v R [2018] NSWCCA 32

The sentencing judge did not impose an aggregate sentence longer than the sum of the indicative sentences, because the judge identified separate indicative sentences for each of the four deception counts and allowed some concurrency between them. The degree of accumulation between the deception counts, the assault offence and the firearm offence was within the sentencing discretion and was consistent with totality. No error was shown in the refusal to find special circumstances or in the firearm indicative sentence. The aggregate sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust having regard to the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's poor subjective case, prior record, late guilty...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed; pseudonym order discharged.
Legal Topics
['aggregate Sentencing' 'indicative Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'special Circumstances' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['aggregate Sentencing' 'indicative Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'special Circumstances' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders']

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 Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing an aggregate sentence that exceeded the sum of the indicative sentences that would have been imposed for each offence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in wholly accumulating the indicative sentences for the applicant.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to find special circumstances.' 'Whether the indicative sentence for the offences of obtaining benefit by deception was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the indicative sentence for the firearms offence was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the pseudonym order should be discharged.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not impose an aggregate sentence longer than the sum of the indicative sentences, because the judge identified separate indicative sentences for each of the four deception counts and allowed some concurrency between them. The degree of accumulation between the deception counts, the assault offence and the firearm offence was within the sentencing discretion and was consistent with totality. No error was shown in the refusal to find special circumstances or in the firearm indicative sentence. The aggregate sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust having regard to the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's poor subjective case, prior record, late guilty...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed; pseudonym order discharged.

Orders

  • ['The order made on 5 February 2018 pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), that there be no publication of the applicant\'s name, be discharged and the applicant hereafter be referred to by his name Anthony Ngati and not by the pseudonym "AN".' 'Leave to appeal against...