Contos v R [2022] NSWCCA 92

Contos v R [2022] NSWCCA 92

The sentencing judge made no House v The King error. Her Honour was acutely aware that the applicant was to be sentenced on agreed facts less serious than those applied to the co-offenders, but it was open to find the applicant's objective seriousness only marginally lower because he instigated and planned the offending, lured the victim, enlisted the co-offenders, prepared the room, and first assaulted the principal victim. The co-offenders' more serious agreed facts largely described acts attributed to the applicant rather than to them. Given the applicant's role and the different objective and subjective circumstances of all three offenders, the applicant did not have an objectively...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court; Leave Granted and Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['objective Seriousness' 'parity Principle' 'kidnapping' 'specially Aggravated Kidnapping' 'aggravated Kidnapping' 'sentence Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['objective Seriousness' 'parity Principle' 'kidnapping' 'specially Aggravated Kidnapping' 'aggravated Kidnapping' 'sentence Appeal']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court; Leave Granted and Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the applicant's offending as only slightly or marginally lower than that of the co-offenders." 'Whether the sentences imposed left the applicant with an objectively justifiable sense of grievance when compared with the sentences imposed on the co-offenders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge made no House v The King error. Her Honour was acutely aware that the applicant was to be sentenced on agreed facts less serious than those applied to the co-offenders, but it was open to find the applicant's objective seriousness only marginally lower because he instigated and planned the offending, lured the victim, enlisted the co-offenders, prepared the room, and first assaulted the principal victim. The co-offenders' more serious agreed facts largely described acts attributed to the applicant rather than to them. Given the applicant's role and the different objective and subjective circumstances of all three offenders, the applicant did not have an objectively...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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