CAR v R [2009] NSWCCA 138

CAR v R [2009] NSWCCA 138

The Court held that the sentencing remarks, read as a whole, showed the applicant was sentenced only for maliciously causing poison to be taken so as to endanger life and not for an intention-to-kill offence. The sentencing judge properly considered the applicant's depressive illness and moderated general...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['maliciously Causing a Poison to Be Taken Thereby Endangering Life' 'carbon Monoxide Poisoning' 'mental Illness in Sentencing' 'delay in Sentencing' 'manifest Excess' 'the Queen V De Simoni Principle']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['maliciously Causing a Poison to Be Taken Thereby Endangering Life' 'carbon Monoxide Poisoning' 'mental Illness in Sentencing' 'delay in Sentencing' 'manifest Excess' 'the Queen V De Simoni Principle']

Source-derived case record

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 Against Severity of Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant on the basis that he intended to kill his son and thereby punished him for a more serious offence.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account that the applicant's mental illness reduced his moral culpability for the offence." "Whether the sentencing judge failed sufficiently to moderate the sentence because of delay between the offending conduct and the applicant's arrest." 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the sentencing remarks, read as a whole, showed the applicant was sentenced only for maliciously causing poison to be taken so as to endanger life and not for an intention-to-kill offence. The sentencing judge properly considered the applicant's depressive illness and moderated general deterrence, but no further reduction for moral culpability was required given the deliberate course of conduct and the need for denunciation. The asserted delay did not establish relevant suspense or warrant further moderation. Although severe, the sentence was within the legitimate range given the planned offending, commission while on conditional liberty, vulnerable infant victim,...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

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