R v Lomas [2004] NSWCCA 46
The sentence of seven years with a non-parole period of five years was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offending, the fact it was committed shortly after release on parole, and the applicant's criminal history; the sentencing judge did not err in his consideration of special circumstances or the structuring of the non-parole and parole periods.
- Parties
- Crown: Regina; Applicant: Daniel Anath Lomas
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 February 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Determination
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted - appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Appeal, Robbery in Company, Special Circumstances, Non Parole Period, Manifestly Excessive Sentence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Crown
Daniel Anath Lomas
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for the offence of robbery in company was manifestly excessive, in light of the applicant's custodial history and non-parole period
- 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in setting the non-parole period and balance of the sentence
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence of seven years with a non-parole period of five years was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offending, the fact it was committed shortly after release on parole, and the applicant's criminal history; the sentencing judge did not err in his consideration of special circumstances or the structuring of the non-parole and parole periods.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted - appeal dismissed
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment