Dominey v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 182

Dominey v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 182

Although there was no reality of double punishment because the break, enter and steal charge omitted the recovered goods, the sentencing remarks did not reveal whether any adjustment was made for the earlier six-month sentence associated with the same break-in. Coupled with the absence of stated pre-discount sentence assessments and the overall effective sentence, the applicant made good a case for intervention. The District Court sentences were quashed and lesser sentences imposed with special circumstances found.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentences quashed; applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['breaking, Entering and Stealing' 'robbery' 'pleas of Guilty' 'sentence Discount' 'double Punishment' 'manifest Excessiveness' 'form 1 Offences' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law and Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['breaking, Entering and Stealing' 'robbery' 'pleas of Guilty' 'sentence Discount' 'double Punishment' 'manifest Excessiveness' 'form 1 Offences' 'special Circumstances']

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence for breaking, entering and stealing involved, or appeared to involve, double punishment because the applicant had already served imprisonment for stealing part of the property taken from the premises.' "Whether the sentencing judge's failure to state the pre-discount sentence assessments and uncertainty about any adjustment for the earlier related sentence warranted appellate intervention." 'Whether the overall effective sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was no reality of double punishment because the break, enter and steal charge omitted the recovered goods, the sentencing remarks did not reveal whether any adjustment was made for the earlier six-month sentence associated with the same break-in. Coupled with the absence of stated pre-discount sentence assessments and the overall effective sentence, the applicant made good a case for intervention. The District Court sentences were quashed and lesser sentences imposed with special circumstances found.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentences quashed; applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal allowed and sentences in the District Court quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, the applicant sentenced as follows.' 'On count 2 (robbery), taking into account the matters on Form 1, to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of two years six months...