Santo v R [2011] NSWCCA 156

Santo v R [2011] NSWCCA 156

The sentencing judge did not err in assessing the offences as substantially above mid-range seriousness, in making the challenged factual findings, in applying totality, or in declining to find special circumstances. The concurrent sentences of 13 years with a non-parole period of 9 years and 9 months were not shown to be excessive or otherwise affected by appellable error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'robbery Whilst Armed With Wounding' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'robbery Whilst Armed With Wounding' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the individual head sentences and non-parole periods were excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the offences were substantially above the middle of the range of objective seriousness.' 'Whether the sentencing judge made findings of fact not based on evidence at trial.' 'Whether the sentencing judge properly applied the totality principle having regard to the earlier sentence being served.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in not finding special circumstances.' 'Whether the aggregate head sentence and non-parole period were excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in assessing the offences as substantially above mid-range seriousness, in making the challenged factual findings, in applying totality, or in declining to find special circumstances. The concurrent sentences of 13 years with a non-parole period of 9 years and 9 months were not shown to be excessive or otherwise affected by appellable error.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal dismissed.']