REGINA v TAE [2005] NSWCCA 29

REGINA v TAE [2005] NSWCCA 29

The sentencing judge did not materially err in allowing a rounded discount of about twenty percent for the guilty plea, and the combined discounts for the guilty plea and assistance were not inadequate. However, because s21E required identification of the sentence that would have been imposed but for the reduction...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal against sentence dismissed, subject to the Court holding that the sentence that would have been imposed but for future assistance would have been two years five months.
Legal Topics
['bribery of a Commonwealth Public Official' 'assistance to Authorities' 'discount for Guilty Plea' 'future Assistance Under S21 E of the Crimes Act 1914 (commonwealth)']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['bribery of a Commonwealth Public Official' 'assistance to Authorities' 'discount for Guilty Plea' 'future Assistance Under S21 E of the Crimes Act 1914 (commonwealth)']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in calculating the discount for the applicant's guilty plea." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to comply with s21E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) by not stating the sentence that would have been imposed but for the reduction for future assistance.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave inadequate value to the applicant's assistance to law enforcement authorities."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not materially err in allowing a rounded discount of about twenty percent for the guilty plea, and the combined discounts for the guilty plea and assistance were not inadequate. However, because s21E required identification of the sentence that would have been imposed but for the reduction for future assistance, the Court apportioned three months of the assistance discount to future assistance and held that the sentence but for that future assistance would have been two years five months.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal against sentence dismissed, subject to the Court holding that the sentence that would have been imposed but for future assistance would have been two years five months.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.' 'The sentence that would have been imposed on the applicant, but for the future assistance which the applicant has undertaken to provide, would have been two years five months.']