Rumble v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 211

Rumble v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 211

The sentencing judge erred by taking the Form 1 offences into account when sentencing on Count 2, and because those offences were serious that error affected the sentence for Count 2, requiring re-sentencing. Apart from that error, the sentences were not manifestly excessive: R v Henry was of little assistance because the applicant was a mature offender with an extensive criminal history, committed offences while on conditional liberty, used a blood-filled syringe in Counts 2 and 3, and was being sentenced for multiple serious offences with Form 1 matters. Sentencing statistics did not establish error and the concurrent aggregate sentence did not offend totality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed; sentence on Count 2 quashed and substituted; sentences on Counts 1 and 3 confirmed.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery' 'assault With Intent to Rob While Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'form 1 Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'guideline Judgments' 'sentencing Statistics' 'totality' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['armed Robbery' 'assault With Intent to Rob While Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'form 1 Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'guideline Judgments' 'sentencing Statistics' 'totality' '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

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 taking Form 1 offences into account when sentencing on Count 2 rather than only in relation to the principal offence, Count 3.' 'Whether the sentences imposed, individually or in aggregate, were manifestly excessive.' "Whether the guideline judgment in R v Henry applied to the applicant's offences." 'What use could properly be made of sentencing statistics for offences contrary to s97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by taking the Form 1 offences into account when sentencing on Count 2, and because those offences were serious that error affected the sentence for Count 2, requiring re-sentencing. Apart from that error, the sentences were not manifestly excessive: R v Henry was of little assistance because the applicant was a mature offender with an extensive criminal history, committed offences while on conditional liberty, used a blood-filled syringe in Counts 2 and 3, and was being sentenced for multiple serious offences with Form 1 matters. Sentencing statistics did not establish error and the concurrent aggregate sentence did not offend totality.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed; sentence on Count 2 quashed and substituted; sentences on Counts 1 and 3 confirmed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed.' "His Honour's sentence in respect of Count 1 is confirmed." "His Honour's sentence in respect of Count 2 is quashed. In lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to a period of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months to commence on 24 July...