Edwards v R [2023] NSWCCA 313

Edwards v R [2023] NSWCCA 313

No sentencing error was established. The applicant could not in reality have been re-released on parole before sentence because he was also bail refused on the new charges; the sentencing judge was not asked to find special circumstances globally and her failure to do so was not error; and a lesser extension of the balance of parole would not reflect the reasonably significant objective seriousness and moral culpability of the three offences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court Orange Decision of Musgrave DCJ Dated 13 December 2022
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['affray' 'assaulting Police' 'special Circumstances' 'parole Revocation' 'cumulation of Sentences' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['affray' 'assaulting Police' 'special Circumstances' 'parole Revocation' 'cumulation of Sentences' 'non Parole Period']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court Orange Decision of Musgrave DCJ Dated 13 December 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing a sentence that failed to reflect the finding of special circumstances when regard is had to the total effective sentence to be served by the applicant.' 'Whether the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to be re-released on parole by reason of the sentence structure.' "Whether the sentencing judge's failure to consider special circumstances globally, rather than only in relation to the new sentence, constituted error."]

Ratio Decidendi

No sentencing error was established. The applicant could not in reality have been re-released on parole before sentence because he was also bail refused on the new charges; the sentencing judge was not asked to find special circumstances globally and her failure to do so was not error; and a lesser extension of the balance of parole would not reflect the reasonably significant objective seriousness and moral culpability of the three offences.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

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