Regina v Field [2011] NSWCCA 13

Regina v Field [2011] NSWCCA 13

The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge adequately assessed the criminality of the offence, was not required to express objective seriousness by reference to a mid-range for an offence without a standard non-parole period, did take personal deterrence into account, did not err in the sequential method used to reach the sentence, and the Crown was held to its concession that special circumstances existed. Although the sentence was at the low end of the appropriate range, it was not manifestly inadequate in the particular circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Sentence Imposed by Neilson DCJ on 3 September 2010
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'personal Deterrence' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Inadequacy']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['robbery Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'personal Deterrence' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Inadequacy']

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 Sentence Imposed by Neilson DCJ on 3 September 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to properly identify the objective seriousness of the respondent's offending." "Whether the sentencing judge gave too much weight to the respondent's mild intellectual disability and subjective case." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account personal deterrence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by adopting an inappropriately mathematical approach to determining sentence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding special circumstances and varying the statutory ratio.' 'Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge adequately assessed the criminality of the offence, was not required to express objective seriousness by reference to a mid-range for an offence without a standard non-parole period, did take personal deterrence into account, did not err in the sequential method used to reach the sentence, and the Crown was held to its concession that special circumstances existed. Although the sentence was at the low end of the appropriate range, it was not manifestly inadequate in the particular circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']