Shaba v R [2011] NSWCCA 154
The sentencing judge failed to account for 1 month and 13 days of pre-sentence custody referable solely to the present offence, warranting the sentence's commencement date to be backdated; no error was demonstrated in relation to further reduction for assistance to authorities or in comparison to the sentence imposed on Mr David.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 July 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Sentence Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Determination
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; sentence backdated
- Legal Topics
- ['sentence Appeal' 'sentencing Procedure' 'commencement Date of Sentence' 'recognition of Assistance to Authorities' 'parity of Sentence']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Sentence Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in not ordering the sentence to commence at an earlier date' 'Whether some other sentence was warranted in law and should have been passed']
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge failed to account for 1 month and 13 days of pre-sentence custody referable solely to the present offence, warranting the sentence's commencement date to be backdated; no error was demonstrated in relation to further reduction for assistance to authorities or in comparison to the sentence imposed on Mr David.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; sentence backdated
Orders
- ['Grant leave to appeal' 'Allow the appeal in part' 'Order in lieu of the sentence imposed by Nicholson DCJ on 18 January 2010 commencing on that day, that the sentence imposed upon the applicant commence on 5 December 2009' "Otherwise confirm Nicholson DCJ's orders" "The applicant's non-parole period will expire on...
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