R v REID [2000] NSWCCA 166

R v REID [2000] NSWCCA 166

The application for leave to appeal was refused as the sentence for being an accessory, while arguably at the upper limit, was justified considering the applicant's serious and repeated offending. Parity with the co-offender did not require a reduction, and the other sentence (car stealing) was in fact inadequate, but no further action was taken to increase it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal is refused
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'accessory Liability' 'parity Principle' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'accessory Liability' 'parity Principle' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by not applying the parity principle' 'Whether the applicant was sentenced as an accessory after the fact to robbery rather than stealing' 'Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was refused as the sentence for being an accessory, while arguably at the upper limit, was justified considering the applicant's serious and repeated offending. Parity with the co-offender did not require a reduction, and the other sentence (car stealing) was in fact inadequate, but no further action was taken to increase it.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal is refused

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal is refused']