Hamilton v R [2016] NSWCCA 59
Error was established in not taking account of pre-trial custody related to the offence. Since the s 95 charge was later no billed and the applicant remained bail refused only in connection with the s 112(2) offence, justice required the sentence to be backdated to the date of bail refusal for the relevant offence. The applicant was resentenced accordingly.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 April 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; applicant resentenced
- Legal Topics
- ['appeal Against Sentence' 'pre Trial Custody' 'sentencing Discretion' 'miscarriage of Justice']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether sentencing judge erred in not backdating or otherwise taking into account applicant's pre-trial custody" 'Whether sentence imposed in respect of the s 112(2) offence resulted in miscarriage of justice']
Ratio Decidendi
Error was established in not taking account of pre-trial custody related to the offence. Since the s 95 charge was later no billed and the applicant remained bail refused only in connection with the s 112(2) offence, justice required the sentence to be backdated to the date of bail refusal for the relevant offence. The applicant was resentenced accordingly.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; applicant resentenced
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal granted' 'Appeal upheld' 'Sentence quashed' 'Appellant resentenced to 34 months imprisonment commencing on 21 October 2014, with non-parole period of 18 months expiring on 20 April 2016 and balance of term expiring on 20 August 2017' 'Applicant released on parole at expiry of non-parole period on...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment