R v Rossi-Murray [2009] NSWCCA 177

R v Rossi-Murray [2009] NSWCCA 177

The sentences were unreasonable and plainly wrong because they insufficiently reflected the objective seriousness and total criminality of the two serious offences, did not give adequate effect to the standard non-parole periods, and failed to take into account the highly relevant aggravating fact that the respondent committed the offences while on bail and parole. No discretionary reason justified refusing Crown intervention, so the appeal was allowed and the respondent was resentenced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence in Criminal Proceedings / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; District Court sentences quashed; respondent resentenced to a total term of 10 years 6 months with an overall non-parole period of 6 years 6 months.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'specially Aggravated Break and Enter' 'wounding With Intent to Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm' 'aggravating Factors' 'conditional Liberty' 'totality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'specially Aggravated Break and Enter' 'wounding With Intent to Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm' 'aggravating Factors' 'conditional Liberty' 'totality']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence in Criminal Proceedings / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for specially aggravated break and enter and wounding with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the home invasion offence and the wounding offence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give proper weight to aggravating factors, including that the respondent was on bail and parole.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to have proper regard to the standard non-parole periods and the totality of the offending.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences were unreasonable and plainly wrong because they insufficiently reflected the objective seriousness and total criminality of the two serious offences, did not give adequate effect to the standard non-parole periods, and failed to take into account the highly relevant aggravating fact that the respondent committed the offences while on bail and parole. No discretionary reason justified refusing Crown intervention, so the appeal was allowed and the respondent was resentenced.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; District Court sentences quashed; respondent resentenced to a total term of 10 years 6 months with an overall non-parole period of 6 years 6 months.

Orders

  • ['The Crown appeal is allowed.' 'The sentences imposed in the District Court are quashed.' 'The respondent is sentenced on the offence of wounding with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 3 years 6 months and a balance of term of 3 years 6 months to...