BT v R [2012] NSWCCA 276

BT v R [2012] NSWCCA 276

The majority held that leave should be granted but the appeal dismissed because the sentencing judge did not commit appealable error. Although s 18 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 was not expressly mentioned, the applicant was sentenced according to law in circumstances where the nature and seriousness of the armed robberies made that course practically inevitable. The statement that the sentences must commence after the existing non-parole period was an exercise of discretion, not a denial of power to order concurrency. The sentencing judge appreciated the cumulative effect of the sentences, including that the applicant would spend four years and six months in custody and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery' 'non Parole Period' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'special Circumstances' 'sentencing Offenders Under 18 Years of Age' 'procedural Fairness']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure' 'children and Young Persons'] ['armed Robbery' 'non Parole Period' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'special Circumstances' 'sentencing Offenders Under 18 Years of Age' 'procedural Fairness']

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 Against Sentence; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider under s 18(1) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 whether the applicant should be dealt with according to law or under Division 4 of Part 3 of that Act.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed properly to exercise discretion about the extent of accumulation on existing sentences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give effect to a finding of special circumstances when accumulating sentences and thereby affected the effective non-parole period.' 'Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness because the sentencing judge allegedly imposed a longer effective non-parole period than indicated during the sentence proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that leave should be granted but the appeal dismissed because the sentencing judge did not commit appealable error. Although s 18 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 was not expressly mentioned, the applicant was sentenced according to law in circumstances where the nature and seriousness of the armed robberies made that course practically inevitable. The statement that the sentences must commence after the existing non-parole period was an exercise of discretion, not a denial of power to order concurrency. The sentencing judge appreciated the cumulative effect of the sentences, including that the applicant would spend four years and six months in custody and...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']