REGINA v VAN DE HAAR [2006] NSWCCA 251

REGINA v VAN DE HAAR [2006] NSWCCA 251

The only error warranting intervention was the agreed miscalculation of the applicant's pre-sentence custody. That error was corrected by varying the commencement date of the sentence on count 8 to 8 January 2007. The other grounds did not justify reducing the non-parole period or otherwise altering the sentences, which were not shown to be manifestly excessive or affected by error warranting further relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; the sentence on count 8 varied to commence on 8 January 2007; otherwise the appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'break and Enter Offences' 'threatening to Use an Offensive Weapon to Prevent Lawful Apprehension' 'pre Sentence Custody' 'special Circumstances' 'protective Custody' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'break and Enter Offences' 'threatening to Use an Offensive Weapon to Prevent Lawful Apprehension' 'pre Sentence Custody' 'special Circumstances' 'protective Custody' '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

Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's pre-sentence custody was wrongly calculated." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to give effect to the finding of special circumstances.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to have regard to the fact that the applicant was serving, or was likely to serve, his sentence in protective custody.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The only error warranting intervention was the agreed miscalculation of the applicant's pre-sentence custody. That error was corrected by varying the commencement date of the sentence on count 8 to 8 January 2007. The other grounds did not justify reducing the non-parole period or otherwise altering the sentences, which were not shown to be manifestly excessive or affected by error warranting further relief.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; the sentence on count 8 varied to commence on 8 January 2007; otherwise the appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'The sentence on count 8 is varied to commence on 8 January 2007.' 'Otherwise the appeal is dismissed.' "The Registrar should forward a copy of this judgment to the Commissioner for Corrective Services, bringing his attention to the Court's recommendation."]