R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 151
The orders made on 7 May 2004 failed to recognise that the appeal was against three concurrent sentences rather than against one sentence, so order (3) should be varied to quash the sentence and re-sentence the applicant separately for Count 1 and for Counts 2 and 3.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 May 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Varying Orders Made on 7 May 2004
- Outcome
- Orders of the Court made on 7 May 2004 varied by substituting a new order (3).
- Legal Topics
- ['sentence Appeal' 'concurrent Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'variation of Orders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Varying Orders Made on 7 May 2004
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the orders made on 7 May 2004 should be varied because they failed to recognise that the appeal was against three concurrent sentences rather than against one sentence.']
Ratio Decidendi
The orders made on 7 May 2004 failed to recognise that the appeal was against three concurrent sentences rather than against one sentence, so order (3) should be varied to quash the sentence and re-sentence the applicant separately for Count 1 and for Counts 2 and 3.
Court Disposition
Orders of the Court made on 7 May 2004 varied by substituting a new order (3).
Orders
- ['Orders of the Court made on 7 May 2004 varied by substituting the following for order (3).' 'Sentence quashed and in lieu thereof the applicant be re-sentenced as follows: In relation to Count 1, taking into account the offences on Form 1, a term of imprisonment for five years commencing on 18 November 2002, with...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment