C-P v R [2009] NSWCCA 291

C-P v R [2009] NSWCCA 291

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because no specific sentencing error was shown. It was open to the sentencing judge to assess the applicant's presentation and to reject or not act on the psychologist's evidence, and even acceptance of that evidence did not mandate a different result. The sentencing remarks showed proper consideration of youth, s 6 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and rehabilitation. The asserted disparity with co-offenders did not give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, particularly because the judge had moderated Khurana's sentence for parity and the applicant's overall sentence was not greater.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery' 'accessory After the Fact' 'form 1 Offences' 'young Offenders' 'expert Evidence' 'parity in Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['armed Robbery' 'accessory After the Fact' 'form 1 Offences' 'young Offenders' 'expert Evidence' 'parity in Sentencing']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to give sufficient weight to uncontested forensic psychologist evidence of the applicant's limited cognitive ability and immaturity." 'Whether the sentencing judge misapplied principles relevant to sentencing a child, including s 6 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and the role of rehabilitation.' 'Whether the sentence gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance when compared with sentences imposed on co-offenders.' "Whether serious offences included on a Form 1 were appropriate and the court's supervisory role under s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because no specific sentencing error was shown. It was open to the sentencing judge to assess the applicant's presentation and to reject or not act on the psychologist's evidence, and even acceptance of that evidence did not mandate a different result. The sentencing remarks showed proper consideration of youth, s 6 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and rehabilitation. The asserted disparity with co-offenders did not give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, particularly because the judge had moderated Khurana's sentence for parity and the applicant's overall sentence was not greater.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']