Regina v Lulham [2002] NSWCCA 262

Regina v Lulham [2002] NSWCCA 262

No sentencing error was demonstrated. The sentencing judge was entitled to give only a small discount for the guilty plea because the applicant had sought to withdraw it and there was no evidence of specific contrition; the applicant's role in obtaining the rifle, driving DT to the scene and knowing DT would kill the deceased supported the assessment of culpability; and although protective custody may not have been taken into account, there was no sufficient evidence before the sentencing judge and, in any event, no different sentence should be imposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'plea of Guilty' 'sentencing Discount' 'relative Culpability' 'parity' 'protective Custody']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['murder' 'plea of Guilty' 'sentencing Discount' 'relative Culpability' 'parity' 'protective Custody']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether insufficient weight was given to the applicant's plea of guilty." "Whether inadequate weight was given to the applicant's reduced culpability compared with DT." 'Whether the sentencing judge overlooked that the applicant was serving, and would probably continue to serve, his sentence in protective custody.']

Ratio Decidendi

No sentencing error was demonstrated. The sentencing judge was entitled to give only a small discount for the guilty plea because the applicant had sought to withdraw it and there was no evidence of specific contrition; the applicant's role in obtaining the rifle, driving DT to the scene and knowing DT would kill the deceased supported the assessment of culpability; and although protective custody may not have been taken into account, there was no sufficient evidence before the sentencing judge and, in any event, no different sentence should be imposed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

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