Regina v Turner [2004] NSWCCA 260

Regina v Turner [2004] NSWCCA 260

The sentencing judge erred by reducing the discount for the utilitarian value of the applicant's committal-stage guilty plea because the Crown case was very strong. The strength of the Crown case could affect whether the plea showed remorse, but not the utilitarian value of avoiding a trial. Given the early plea and lack of great complexity, an approximately 20 per cent discount was appropriate, and the sentence warranted in law was three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months.
Legal Topics
['guilty Plea Discount' 'utilitarian Value of Plea' 'strength of Crown Case' 'double Jeopardy' 'breach of Parole' 'break and Enter']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['guilty Plea Discount' 'utilitarian Value of Plea' 'strength of Crown Case' 'double Jeopardy' 'breach of Parole' 'break and Enter']

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 Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by having regard to the strength of the Crown case when determining the utilitarian value of the applicant's plea of guilty." 'Whether the sentence should nevertheless stand under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act.' 'Whether the sentence should have been heavier because the offence was committed while the applicant was on parole and because of his prior offences.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by reducing the discount for the utilitarian value of the applicant's committal-stage guilty plea because the Crown case was very strong. The strength of the Crown case could affect whether the plea showed remorse, but not the utilitarian value of avoiding a trial. Given the early plea and lack of great complexity, an approximately 20 per cent discount was appropriate, and the sentence warranted in law was three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant resentenced to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Sentence quashed. In lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years to date from 12 March 2003 and to expire on 11 March 2006.' 'A non-parole period of two years and three months is fixed to expire on 11 June 2005 on which date the...