Regina v Rose [2004] NSWCCA 326

Regina v Rose [2004] NSWCCA 326

The Crown appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge made no clear error of principle and the deferment of sentence for rehabilitation under s11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was reasonably open. The judge was entitled to weigh the respondent's onerous pre-sentence protective custody, early guilty plea, remorse, contrition, absence of several aggravating features, and strong rehabilitation prospects against the seriousness of the offence, prior record and need for deterrence. The case was not an appropriate vehicle for appellate intervention on a Crown appeal alleging only manifest inadequacy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Sentencing Decision
Outcome
Crown appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'sentencing Discretion' 'rehabilitation' 'break and Enter and Steal' 'protective Custody' 'guilty Plea' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'sentencing Discretion' 'rehabilitation' 'break and Enter and Steal' 'protective Custody' 'guilty Plea' 'form 1 Offences']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Sentencing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the District Court's deferral of sentence under s11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for rehabilitation was manifestly inadequate." "Whether too much weight was given to the respondent's rehabilitation and subjective circumstances when compared with the objective seriousness of the offence, prior record, conditional liberty and general deterrence." 'Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal should interfere on a Crown appeal where no specific sentencing error was identified.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge made no clear error of principle and the deferment of sentence for rehabilitation under s11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was reasonably open. The judge was entitled to weigh the respondent's onerous pre-sentence protective custody, early guilty plea, remorse, contrition, absence of several aggravating features, and strong rehabilitation prospects against the seriousness of the offence, prior record and need for deterrence. The case was not an appropriate vehicle for appellate intervention on a Crown appeal alleging only manifest inadequacy.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']