R v Hutchison [2000] NSWCCA 113

R v Hutchison [2000] NSWCCA 113

Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge's factual findings were amply supported by the evidence, the applicant's submissions disclosed no sentencing error, and the sentence was entirely proper having regard to the objective gravity of the principal offence, the need for general deterrence for s33B offences, the further offences taken into account, and the applicant's serious criminal history involving motor vehicles and hindering apprehension by police.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['using an Offensive Weapon With Intent to Prevent Lawful Apprehension' 'motor Vehicle as Offensive Weapon' 'dangerous Driving' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'antecedent Criminal History' 'general Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['using an Offensive Weapon With Intent to Prevent Lawful Apprehension' 'motor Vehicle as Offensive Weapon' 'dangerous Driving' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'antecedent Criminal History' 'general Deterrence']

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge's findings of fact should be disturbed on appeal." 'Whether the sentence of penal servitude for four years and six months, with a minimum term of two years six months, was excessive or otherwise erroneous.' "Whether the applicant's plea, personal circumstances, alleged back injury, alleged sentencing agreement, and challenges to the passenger's account affected the sentencing outcome."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge's factual findings were amply supported by the evidence, the applicant's submissions disclosed no sentencing error, and the sentence was entirely proper having regard to the objective gravity of the principal offence, the need for general deterrence for s33B offences, the further offences taken into account, and the applicant's serious criminal history involving motor vehicles and hindering apprehension by police.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused']