R v WATEGO [2001] NSWCCA 236

R v WATEGO [2001] NSWCCA 236

Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed because the sentencing judge found special circumstances justifying a shorter non-parole period but overlooked that intention when fixing the non-parole period. The other grounds failed: Harrison's sentence did not create a justifiable sense of grievance because the applicant was the moving party, had broader criminality before the sentencing judge, and Harrison's sentence followed a Crown appeal; the twenty-five percent discount was not shown to be insufficient; and the five-year starting point was within range given the nine offences including matters taken into account.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; original sentences quashed; applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'parity' 'co Operation With Police' 'manifest Excess' 'taking Other Offences Into Account']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'parity' 'co Operation With Police' 'manifest Excess' 'taking Other Offences Into Account']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to give effect to a finding that special circumstances justified a shorter non-parole period.' 'Whether comparison with the sentence imposed on Harrison gave the applicant a justifiable sense of grievance.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient credit for the applicant's co-operation with police." 'Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed because the sentencing judge found special circumstances justifying a shorter non-parole period but overlooked that intention when fixing the non-parole period. The other grounds failed: Harrison's sentence did not create a justifiable sense of grievance because the applicant was the moving party, had broader criminality before the sentencing judge, and Harrison's sentence followed a Crown appeal; the twenty-five percent discount was not shown to be insufficient; and the five-year starting point was within range given the nine offences including matters taken into account.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; original sentences quashed; applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Allow the appeal.' 'Quash the sentences imposed by Goldring DCJ.' 'On the first count and taking into account the matters on the schedule, impose a sentence of three years nine months commencing on 6 June 2000 and expiring on 5 March 2004; fix a non-parole period of two years to expire on...