Regina v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172

Regina v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172

The sentencing judge's wording was inexact but did not show that he committed the alleged legal error in determining the sentence. The head sentence was not challenged, the non-parole period was within the range of the legitimate exercise of sentencing discretion, and the finding of special circumstances did not require any greater departure from the statutory proportion. The Court was not satisfied under s6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1922 that another sentence should have been passed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'severity Appeal' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'form 1 Offences' 'rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'severity Appeal' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'form 1 Offences' 'rehabilitation']

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 Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by first determining the non-parole period and then determining an additional term.' 'Whether the sentencing judge, having found special circumstances, failed to give proper weight to those circumstances in determining the non-parole period.' 'Whether another non-parole period should have been imposed under s6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1922.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge's wording was inexact but did not show that he committed the alleged legal error in determining the sentence. The head sentence was not challenged, the non-parole period was within the range of the legitimate exercise of sentencing discretion, and the finding of special circumstances did not require any greater departure from the statutory proportion. The Court was not satisfied under s6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1922 that another sentence should have been passed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

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