Regina v Daniel Shanks [2002] NSWCCA 438

Regina v Daniel Shanks [2002] NSWCCA 438

The Court held that no sentencing error was shown. The principal offences were serious, planned, committed while the applicant was on parole for similar offending, and involved weapons, injury or risk to security staff, substantial property loss and multiple offences. The sentencing judge assessed the individual offences, gave appropriate discounts for guilty pleas, took subjective matters into account, and properly applied totality. The 12-month fixed term for escape was within the sentencing discretion given that the sentence was at the lower end of escape offending and ordinary escape sentences may approximate two years.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery in Company' 'break and Enter in Circumstances of Special Aggravation' 'steal a Motor Vehicle' 'escape From Lawful Custody' 'parole' 'totality Principle' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Practice and Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['armed Robbery in Company' 'break and Enter in Circumstances of Special Aggravation' 'steal a Motor Vehicle' 'escape From Lawful Custody' 'parole' 'totality Principle' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'manifest Excess']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon, break and enter in circumstances of special aggravation, and stealing a motor vehicle were too severe or affected by error.' 'Whether the sentencing judge properly assessed each offence separately and then applied the principle of totality.' "Whether the applicant's role, guilty pleas, Judicial Commission statistics, comparable cases, rehabilitation prospects, family support and Hepatitis C made the sentences manifestly excessive." 'Whether the fixed term of 12 months imprisonment for escape from lawful custody was excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that no sentencing error was shown. The principal offences were serious, planned, committed while the applicant was on parole for similar offending, and involved weapons, injury or risk to security staff, substantial property loss and multiple offences. The sentencing judge assessed the individual offences, gave appropriate discounts for guilty pleas, took subjective matters into account, and properly applied totality. The 12-month fixed term for escape was within the sentencing discretion given that the sentence was at the lower end of escape offending and ordinary escape sentences may approximate two years.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave be given to appeal.' 'The appeal in each case be dismissed.']