R v Mahoney [2004] NSWCCA 138

R v Mahoney [2004] NSWCCA 138

The error of principle was the failure to provide any real penalty and deterrent effect in sentencing for the perjury offences, as the sentences were made entirely concurrent with sentences for other offences, resulting in no independent punishment for the perjury. The Court allowed the Crown appeal, set aside the original sentences, and imposed new fixed terms of imprisonment with non-parole periods for each count.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal Determination and Re Sentencing
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed and re-sentencing ordered
Legal Topics
['perjury' 'sentencing' 'crown Appeals']
['criminal Law'] ['perjury' 'sentencing' 'crown Appeals']

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 / Appeal Determination and Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for perjury were manifestly inadequate' 'Whether a real penalty and deterrent effect was imposed for the perjury convictions' 'Whether Crown appeals on sentence should be allowed absent error of principle']

Ratio Decidendi

The error of principle was the failure to provide any real penalty and deterrent effect in sentencing for the perjury offences, as the sentences were made entirely concurrent with sentences for other offences, resulting in no independent punishment for the perjury. The Court allowed the Crown appeal, set aside the original sentences, and imposed new fixed terms of imprisonment with non-parole periods for each count.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed and re-sentencing ordered

Orders

  • ['Appeal be granted and the sentence be set aside' 'As to count 1, the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of 18 months commencing on 6 March 2005, and expiring on 5 September 2006, with a non-parole period of 9 months' 'As to count 2, the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term...