R v COTTER AND ORS [2003] NSWCCA 273

R v COTTER AND ORS [2003] NSWCCA 273

The sentences imposed on Messrs Eter and Cotter were manifestly inadequate, having failed to give adequate weight to objective gravity, impact on victims, and proper application of guideline sentencing principles for robbery in company. Nonetheless, in the exercise of discretion considering double jeopardy, prospects of rehabilitation, and the passage of time, the non-parole periods were not disturbed and Crown appeals were ultimately dismissed for all offenders except for a technical allowance in the case of Mr Eter without altering the result.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Sentence Appeals (crown and Respondent)
Outcome
Crown appeal dismissed as to Cotter, Russell, Iremonger; in the case of Eter, application for leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed, and Crown appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'robbery in Company' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'parity of Sentences' 'severity of Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'robbery in Company' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'parity of Sentences' 'severity of Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence']

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

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Sentence Appeals (crown and Respondent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate' 'Proper application of guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346' 'Appropriate allowance for pleas of guilty and prospects of rehabilitation' 'Correct application of joint criminal enterprise principles and parity in sentencing']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed on Messrs Eter and Cotter were manifestly inadequate, having failed to give adequate weight to objective gravity, impact on victims, and proper application of guideline sentencing principles for robbery in company. Nonetheless, in the exercise of discretion considering double jeopardy, prospects of rehabilitation, and the passage of time, the non-parole periods were not disturbed and Crown appeals were ultimately dismissed for all offenders except for a technical allowance in the case of Mr Eter without altering the result.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal dismissed as to Cotter, Russell, Iremonger; in the case of Eter, application for leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed, and Crown appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['In the case of Mr Eter: (a) Grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence but dismiss the appeal; (b) Dismiss the Crown appeal.' 'Dismiss the Crown appeals against the sentences imposed upon each of Messrs Cotter, Russell and Iremonger.']