R v Paris [2001] NSWCCA 83

R v Paris [2001] NSWCCA 83

The District Court sentencing judge erred by misapprehending the Crown's concession regarding custodial sentence, failing to consider alternative sentencing options to a non-custodial bond, inadequately taking into account relevant legal principles regarding offences against police, and incorrectly applying s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, thus imposing a sentence that was manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances. The appropriate disposition is a suspended sentence of imprisonment with a good behaviour bond.

Parties
Appellant: Crown; Respondent: Robert John Paris
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed, respondent sentenced to two years imprisonment, execution of sentence suspended for the whole term, and released on condition of a good behaviour bond for the term of the sentence.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Crown Appeals, Threatening Police, Offensive Weapons, Section 10 Good Behaviour Bond, Leniency of Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Crown Appeals Threatening Police Offensive Weapons Section 10 Good Behaviour Bond Leniency of 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown

Appellant

Robert John Paris

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Whether sentencing Judge erred in law in characterising the offence and applying s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
  3. 3 Whether due weight was given to the seriousness of the offence, particularly where police were threatened

Ratio Decidendi

The District Court sentencing judge erred by misapprehending the Crown's concession regarding custodial sentence, failing to consider alternative sentencing options to a non-custodial bond, inadequately taking into account relevant legal principles regarding offences against police, and incorrectly applying s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, thus imposing a sentence that was manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances. The appropriate disposition is a suspended sentence of imprisonment with a good behaviour bond.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed, respondent sentenced to two years imprisonment, execution of sentence suspended for the whole term, and released on condition of a good behaviour bond for the term of the sentence.

Orders

  • Respondent sentenced to two years imprisonment.
  • Execution of sentence suspended for two years.