Hoswell v R [2006] NSWCCA 70

Hoswell v R [2006] NSWCCA 70

By majority, leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because no lesser sentence was warranted in law. The majority held that the sentencing judge had sufficiently accounted for the plea and relevant subjective matters, or alternatively that any deficiency did not justify intervention, given the applicant's lengthy record for similar offending, repeated parole breaches, poor history of rehabilitation, the need for personal deterrence and the conclusion that the sentence was at the bottom of the permissible range.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
By majority, leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['plea of Guilty' 'utilitarian Discount' 'break, Enter and Steal' 'prior Criminal Record' 'remorse and Rehabilitation' 'protective Custody' 'special Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['plea of Guilty' 'utilitarian Discount' 'break, Enter and Steal' 'prior Criminal Record' 'remorse and Rehabilitation' 'protective Custody' 'special Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences' '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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge took the applicant's early plea of guilty into account and allowed a utilitarian discount." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account evidence of remorse, changed attitude, rehabilitation prospects and support from Ms Palmer.' "Whether the applicant's protective custody and its hardship were taken into account." 'Whether special circumstances should have been found because of the accumulation of sentences.' 'Whether the effective sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because no lesser sentence was warranted in law. The majority held that the sentencing judge had sufficiently accounted for the plea and relevant subjective matters, or alternatively that any deficiency did not justify intervention, given the applicant's lengthy record for similar offending, repeated parole breaches, poor history of rehabilitation, the need for personal deterrence and the conclusion that the sentence was at the bottom of the permissible range.

Court Disposition

By majority, leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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