REGINA v CVH [2003] NSWCCA 237

REGINA v CVH [2003] NSWCCA 237

Because the applicant was a child when the offences were committed and under 21 when charged, s25 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 applied. The adult pre-sentence report did not strictly comply with Regulation 6 and did not adequately cover the matters required by the mandatory statutory provision. The sentencing judge therefore erred by failing to comply with s25, requiring leave to appeal to be granted, the appeal allowed, the sentences quashed and the matter remitted to the trial judge for re-sentencing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Severity of Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences quashed; matter referred back to O'Keefe J for re-sentencing.
Legal Topics
['mandatory Juvenile Justice Background Report' 'children (criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 S25' 'severity of Sentence' 'totality Principle' 're Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'juvenile Justice'] ['mandatory Juvenile Justice Background Report' 'children (criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 S25' 'severity of Sentence' 'totality Principle' 're Sentencing']

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

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Severity of Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing proceedings miscarried because no background report complying with s25 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 was obtained for an offender who was a child when the offences were committed and under 21 when charged.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant's youth at the time of the offences." 'Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, including by reason of the totality principle.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant was a child when the offences were committed and under 21 when charged, s25 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 applied. The adult pre-sentence report did not strictly comply with Regulation 6 and did not adequately cover the matters required by the mandatory statutory provision. The sentencing judge therefore erred by failing to comply with s25, requiring leave to appeal to be granted, the appeal allowed, the sentences quashed and the matter remitted to the trial judge for re-sentencing.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences quashed; matter referred back to O'Keefe J for re-sentencing.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' "Appeal allowed and the sentences imposed by O'Keefe J quashed." "Matter referred back to O'Keefe J for re-sentencing."]