Newman v R [2012] NSWCCA 69

Newman v R [2012] NSWCCA 69

The disparity ground failed because the applicant and Chatfield received equal sentences for the joint offences and equal sentences for their most serious offences, the sentencing judge was conscious of equality, the applicant appeared to have instigated the fracas and had an additional count, and the differences did not create a manifest discrepancy or justifiable sense of grievance. However, the offences formed one drunken, drug-fuelled episode and the accumulation of the sentence on count 2 produced an excessive overall sentence; proper application of totality required count 2 to commence on 28 July 2010.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed at Dubbo District Court by Acting Judge Woods on 20 December 2010
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part by varying the commencement date of the sentence on count 2.
Legal Topics
['disparity of Sentence With Co Offender' 'parity Principle' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['disparity of Sentence With Co Offender' 'parity Principle' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle']

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 Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed at Dubbo District Court by Acting Judge Woods on 20 December 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance arising out of disparity between his sentence and the sentence received by co-offender Chatfield.' 'Whether the sentence for the offence under s95(1) was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the extent of accumulation of the sentences led to an excessive total sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The disparity ground failed because the applicant and Chatfield received equal sentences for the joint offences and equal sentences for their most serious offences, the sentencing judge was conscious of equality, the applicant appeared to have instigated the fracas and had an additional count, and the differences did not create a manifest discrepancy or justifiable sense of grievance. However, the offences formed one drunken, drug-fuelled episode and the accumulation of the sentence on count 2 produced an excessive overall sentence; proper application of totality required count 2 to commence on 28 July 2010.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part by varying the commencement date of the sentence on count 2.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence on count 2 of a non-parole period of two years and nine months with a balance of term of one year and nine months should commence on 28 July 2010.' 'In consequence he will be eligible for parole on 27 April 2013 and the total sentence will...