Ballard v R [2011] NSWCCA 193
The appeal was allowed in part because the structuring of the sentences, particularly the accumulation of the drug and firearms offences, resulted in an overall effective sentence that was manifestly excessive, warranting a greater degree of concurrence to properly reflect the totality of criminality.
- Parties
- Applicant: Ben Arthur Ballard; Respondent: Crown
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 29 August 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; leave to appeal granted.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Against Sentence, Principles of Totality, Assessment of Objective Seriousness, Concurrence and Accumulation of Sentences, Standard Non Parole Period, Special Circumstances
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ben Arthur Ballard
Applicant
Crown
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive
- 2 Whether inadequate level of concurrence between drug and firearms offences in sentencing
- 3 Whether sentencing judge erred in assessment of objective seriousness of drug offence
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was allowed in part because the structuring of the sentences, particularly the accumulation of the drug and firearms offences, resulted in an overall effective sentence that was manifestly excessive, warranting a greater degree of concurrence to properly reflect the totality of criminality.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; leave to appeal granted.
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted.
- Appeal allowed in part.
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