R v DKL [2013] NSWCCA 233

R v DKL [2013] NSWCCA 233

The sentence imposed by Ashford DCJ was manifestly inadequate because it failed sufficiently to reflect the totality of the respondent's criminality, especially the discrete intimidation of his son with a rifle and the separate offending against different victims over different periods, and delay did not justify the inadequate concurrency. However, the Court exercised the residual discretion to dismiss the Crown appeal because of the respondent's significant deterioration in physical and mental health since incarceration, with the purposes of guidance and denunciation sufficiently served by the reasons and indicative sentence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence Under S 5 D(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales at Parramatta
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'totality Principle' 'concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences' 'delay' 'residual Discretion' 'deterioration in Health After Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'totality Principle' 'concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences' 'delay' 'residual Discretion' 'deterioration in Health After Sentence']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence Under S 5 D(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales at Parramatta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed by Ashford DCJ was manifestly inadequate because of substantial concurrence with sentences earlier imposed by Conlon DCJ.' "Whether delay between the offending and sentencing should operate to the respondent's benefit." 'Whether the Court should exercise the residual discretion to dismiss the Crown appeal despite demonstrated error and manifest inadequacy.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed by Ashford DCJ was manifestly inadequate because it failed sufficiently to reflect the totality of the respondent's criminality, especially the discrete intimidation of his son with a rifle and the separate offending against different victims over different periods, and delay did not justify the inadequate concurrency. However, the Court exercised the residual discretion to dismiss the Crown appeal because of the respondent's significant deterioration in physical and mental health since incarceration, with the purposes of guidance and denunciation sufficiently served by the reasons and indicative sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']