AW v R [2010] NSWCCA 249

AW v R [2010] NSWCCA 249

The sentencing judge did not err in her application of the relevant sentencing principles for young offenders, including the importance of rehabilitation, nor in her assessment of remorse and contrition, nor in not ordering concurrency with the previous parole period; the sentence was within discretion and not manifestly excessive.

Parties
Applicant: AW; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Young Offender, Manifest Excess, Rehabilitation
Criminal Law Sentencing Young Offender Manifest Excess 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AW

Applicant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider and apply sentencing principles relevant to young offenders and the importance of rehabilitation
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider remorse and contrition

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in her application of the relevant sentencing principles for young offenders, including the importance of rehabilitation, nor in her assessment of remorse and contrition, nor in not ordering concurrency with the previous parole period; the sentence was within discretion and not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against sentence granted
  • Appeal dismissed