REGINA v Corey ALLAN [2004] NSWCCA 107

REGINA v Corey ALLAN [2004] NSWCCA 107

The sentencing judge did not determine the structure of accumulation before fixing appropriate sentences for each offence merely because he explained his reasoning about partial accumulation before nominating the terms. It was open to the judge to treat the first offence as complete before the applicant embarked on the further offences and to regard that circumstance as favouring accumulation. No individual sentence or aggregate sentence was contended to be manifestly excessive, and no error in applying totality was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence Severity / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['severity of Sentence' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'concurrent and Consecutive Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['severity of Sentence' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'concurrent and Consecutive Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'non Parole Period']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence Severity / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in ordering that the sentences for counts 2 and 3 be entirely cumulative on the sentence for count 1.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to, or failed adequately to, address the principle of totality.' 'Whether the sentencing judge determined accumulation before fixing an appropriate sentence for each offence contrary to Pearce v The Queen.' 'Whether it was open to the sentencing judge to take into account that the first offence was complete before the commission of the other offences as a circumstance favouring accumulation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not determine the structure of accumulation before fixing appropriate sentences for each offence merely because he explained his reasoning about partial accumulation before nominating the terms. It was open to the judge to treat the first offence as complete before the applicant embarked on the further offences and to regard that circumstance as favouring accumulation. No individual sentence or aggregate sentence was contended to be manifestly excessive, and no error in applying totality was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

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