Bezjak v R; Button v R [2018] NSWCCA 178

Bezjak v R; Button v R [2018] NSWCCA 178

The sentencing judge failed to apply the indicated 5% discount for the applicants' late guilty pleas on relevant counts, leading to error. The aggregate sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and breached the parity principle, especially given the comparison with co-offenders and the applicants' lesser roles or moral culpability. Re-sentencing was warranted, and, after considering all factors including background, remorse, and risk of reoffending, lower aggregate sentences were imposed with an appropriate non-parole period adjusted for special circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Daniel Bezjak; Applicant: James Button; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Appeal and Re Sentence
Outcome
Appeals allowed. Original sentences quashed. Both applicants re-sentenced to lower aggregate terms of imprisonment with revised non-parole periods.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Appeal Against Sentence, Aggregate Sentencing, Mitigating Factors, Parity Principle, Remorse, Discount for Plea, Manifest Excess
Criminal Law Sentencing Appeal Against Sentence Aggregate Sentencing Mitigating Factors Parity Principle Remorse Discount for Plea +1 more

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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Bezjak

Applicant

James Button

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Appeal and Re Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge failed to apply the correct discount for late guilty pleas to the applicants’ sentences
  2. 2 Whether a 5% discount was manifestly inadequate in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or offended the parity principle

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge failed to apply the indicated 5% discount for the applicants' late guilty pleas on relevant counts, leading to error. The aggregate sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and breached the parity principle, especially given the comparison with co-offenders and the applicants' lesser roles or moral culpability. Re-sentencing was warranted, and, after considering all factors including background, remorse, and risk of reoffending, lower aggregate sentences were imposed with an appropriate non-parole period adjusted for special circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed. Original sentences quashed. Both applicants re-sentenced to lower aggregate terms of imprisonment with revised non-parole periods.

Orders

  • On the application of James Button: (1) Grant leave to appeal. (2) Allow the appeal. (3) Quash the sentence imposed by His Honour Judge King SC in the District Court on 28 April 2017. (4) In lieu, sentence the appellant to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for seven years and six months commencing 9 July 2016...
  • On the application of Daniel Bezjak: (1) Grant leave to appeal. (2) Allow the appeal. (3) Quash the sentence imposed by His Honour Judge King SC in the District Court on 28 April 2017. (4) In lieu, sentence the appellant to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for six years commencing 29 April 2015 and expiring 28...