CL v R [2014] NSWCCA 196

CL v R [2014] NSWCCA 196

The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge expressly took into account extra-curial punishment, delay, assistance, co-offender sentences and special circumstances; the applicant was bound by the agreed facts tendered by consent; the parity argument failed because the co-offenders faced substantially different charges and factual circumstances; and the aggregate sentence of 7 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months was not unreasonable or plainly unjust given the high objective seriousness of repeated corrupt offending by a serving Detective Sergeant who abused police powers and information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Leave Granted and Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggregate Sentence' 'corrupt Conduct by Serving Police Officer' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'delay' 'agreed Facts on Sentence' 'assistance to Authorities' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['aggregate Sentence' 'corrupt Conduct by Serving Police Officer' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'delay' 'agreed Facts on Sentence' 'assistance to Authorities' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'manifest Excess']

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 Aggregate Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Leave Granted and Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed properly to take into account extra-curial punishment suffered by the applicant.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed properly to take into account delay.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by having regard to factual errors and failing to have regard to omitted facts.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed properly to take into account assistance given by the applicant to authorities and to apply an overall reflective discount.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to apply proper principles of parity in respect of co-offenders.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge expressly took into account extra-curial punishment, delay, assistance, co-offender sentences and special circumstances; the applicant was bound by the agreed facts tendered by consent; the parity argument failed because the co-offenders faced substantially different charges and factual circumstances; and the aggregate sentence of 7 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months was not unreasonable or plainly unjust given the high objective seriousness of repeated corrupt offending by a serving Detective Sergeant who abused police powers and information.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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