Estephan v R [2015] NSWCCA 100
The sentencing judge did not err in allowing a 20% reduction for the guilty plea (rather than 25%), refusing to find special circumstances, or in the comparative assessment of criminality regarding co-offender Kaminic. The sentence was within a reasonable discretionary range and not manifestly excessive nor did it involve unjustified disparity.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 May 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Final Decision on Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['sentencing' 'accessory After the Fact to Murder' 'plea Discount' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess' 'parity Principle']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Final Decision on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive' 'Whether parity principle was breached with reference to sentence imposed upon co-offender' 'Whether sufficient discount allowed for plea of guilty' 'Whether sentencing judge erred in not finding special circumstances']
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge did not err in allowing a 20% reduction for the guilty plea (rather than 25%), refusing to find special circumstances, or in the comparative assessment of criminality regarding co-offender Kaminic. The sentence was within a reasonable discretionary range and not manifestly excessive nor did it involve unjustified disparity.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal is granted' 'The appeal is dismissed']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment