R v Martin [2003] NSWCCA 325

R v Martin [2003] NSWCCA 325

The sentencing judge made no material error. He properly treated the principal break enter and steal offence as serious because it involved planning, reconnaissance, vandalism and damage, a very large sum of money, and an elderly victim known to the applicant. He considered the objective and subjective circumstances, allowed a 25 percent discount for the early plea, considered other sentencing options, gave due consideration to restitution and the psychiatric and psychological material, and imposed sentences that were appropriate to the applicant's total criminality. The disparity with the co-offender Maher did not create a justifiable sense of grievance, and there was no evidentiary...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['break Enter and Steal' 'enter Land With Intent to Break Enter and Steal' 'larceny' 'manifest Excess' 'parity' 'sentencing Alternatives' 'assistance to Authorities' 'deterrence' 'psychiatric and Psychological Evidence' 'restitution']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break Enter and Steal' 'enter Land With Intent to Break Enter and Steal' 'larceny' 'manifest Excess' 'parity' 'sentencing Alternatives' 'assistance to Authorities' 'deterrence' 'psychiatric and Psychological Evidence' 'restitution']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive having regard to the applicant's youth, prior good record, early pleas, remorse and restitution made or offered." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient effect to parity between the applicant and the co-offender Maher.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider sentencing options other than full-time imprisonment as required by s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give weight to alleged assistance to law enforcement authorities under s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in his remarks concerning deterrence.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the relationship between the applicant's psychiatric and psychological condition and the offences." "Whether the sentencing judge gave inadequate weight to the applicant's efforts to compensate victims."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge made no material error. He properly treated the principal break enter and steal offence as serious because it involved planning, reconnaissance, vandalism and damage, a very large sum of money, and an elderly victim known to the applicant. He considered the objective and subjective circumstances, allowed a 25 percent discount for the early plea, considered other sentencing options, gave due consideration to restitution and the psychiatric and psychological material, and imposed sentences that were appropriate to the applicant's total criminality. The disparity with the co-offender Maher did not create a justifiable sense of grievance, and there was no evidentiary...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']