REGINA v APM [2005] NSWCCA 463

REGINA v APM [2005] NSWCCA 463

The appeal was allowed to correct an error in sentence formulation under s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, but the facts—panic and recklessness rather than intent—meant that providing for the sentence to be served by periodic detention was not manifestly inadequate to warrant ordering full time custody. The objective seriousness was properly considered, and further error in weighting of Local Court jurisdiction or technical sentencing formulation did not warrant a more severe term.

Parties
Crown/appellant: Regina; Respondent: APM
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Crown Appeal Against Sentence; Re Sentencing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Crown Appeal Against Sentence, Maliciously Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm, Sentencing Principles, Periodic Detention, Objective Seriousness, Manifest Inadequacy of Sentence
Criminal Law Crown Appeal Against Sentence Maliciously Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm Sentencing Principles Periodic Detention Objective Seriousness Manifest Inadequacy of Sentence

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 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown/appellant

APM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Crown Appeal Against Sentence; Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Whether insufficient weight was given to the objective seriousness of the offence
  3. 3 Whether Local Court jurisdiction was an irrelevant consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed to correct an error in sentence formulation under s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, but the facts—panic and recklessness rather than intent—meant that providing for the sentence to be served by periodic detention was not manifestly inadequate to warrant ordering full time custody. The objective seriousness was properly considered, and further error in weighting of Local Court jurisdiction or technical sentencing formulation did not warrant a more severe term.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Sentence quashed