R. v Baker [1999] NSWCCA 150
The sentencing judge's decision not to find special circumstances and not to give a greater additional term than one-third of the minimum term was a proper exercise of discretion according to settled principles. While quasi custody (time at Selah Farm) was argued, its omission did not render the sentence manifestly excessive or amount to error justifying intervention.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 June 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence; Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['sentence Appeal' 'armed Robbery' 'special Circumstances' 'drug Addiction' 'rehabilitation' 'minimum and Additional Terms']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence; Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in not finding special circumstances justifying a greater additional term under section 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1989' 'Whether quasi custody (time spent at Selah Farm) should have been taken into account in sentencing' 'Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive']
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge's decision not to find special circumstances and not to give a greater additional term than one-third of the minimum term was a proper exercise of discretion according to settled principles. While quasi custody (time at Selah Farm) was argued, its omission did not render the sentence manifestly excessive or amount to error justifying intervention.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Orders
- ['Application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.' 'Appeal is dismissed.']
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