Buadromo v R [2007] NSWCCA 43

Buadromo v R [2007] NSWCCA 43

The sentencing judge intended to give effect to special circumstances but the accumulation of the sentences produced an overall non-parole period of 73% of the total term, effectively undoing that finding. That structural error required correction, although the Court was not persuaded that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentences Imposed in the District Court Following Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed to the extent of quashing and re-sentencing Count 5; total term remained eleven years and three months with an overall non-parole period of seven years and six months.
Legal Topics
['severity Appeal' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Steal' 'aggravated Steal and Break Out' 'attempted Robbery in Company' 'aggravated Attempted Carjacking' 'form 1 Offences' 'special Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['severity Appeal' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Steal' 'aggravated Steal and Break Out' 'attempted Robbery in Company' 'aggravated Attempted Carjacking' 'form 1 Offences' 'special Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess']

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 Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentences Imposed in the District Court Following Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge's finding of special circumstances was properly reflected in the effective non-parole period imposed." 'Whether the overall sentence and effective non-parole period were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the accumulation of sentences for discrete offences produced an erroneous total sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge intended to give effect to special circumstances but the accumulation of the sentences produced an overall non-parole period of 73% of the total term, effectively undoing that finding. That structural error required correction, although the Court was not persuaded that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed to the extent of quashing and re-sentencing Count 5; total term remained eleven years and three months with an overall non-parole period of seven years and six months.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed.' 'The sentence imposed in respect of Count 5 quashed.' 'In respect of Count 5, the applicant re-sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and six months, commencing on 17 December 2009 and expiring on 16 June 2011, with a balance of term of three years...