Regina v Solomon [2005] NSWCCA 158

Regina v Solomon [2005] NSWCCA 158

Despite inadmissible parts of the victim impact statements, there was ample admissible evidence that each victim suffered substantial injury or emotional harm beyond the ordinary assumed effects of armed robbery, so the sentencing judge did not err in treating the offences as aggravated under s 21A(2)(g). The offences were serious, the armed robbery involving property valued at $500,000 and the attempted armed robbery involving actual violence, and the applicant was on a good behaviour bond; the individual and overall sentences were not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / 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
['armed Robbery' 'attempted Armed Robbery' 'aggravating Factors Under S 21 A' 'victim Impact Statements' 'substantial Emotional Harm' 'manifest Excess' 'totality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['armed Robbery' 'attempted Armed Robbery' 'aggravating Factors Under S 21 A' 'victim Impact Statements' 'substantial Emotional Harm' 'manifest Excess' 'totality']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether inadmissible material in the victim impact statements caused an error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.' 'Whether the injury or emotional harm caused to the victims was substantial for the purposes of s 21A(2)(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether the individual sentences and the overall sentence were manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Despite inadmissible parts of the victim impact statements, there was ample admissible evidence that each victim suffered substantial injury or emotional harm beyond the ordinary assumed effects of armed robbery, so the sentencing judge did not err in treating the offences as aggravated under s 21A(2)(g). The offences were serious, the armed robbery involving property valued at $500,000 and the attempted armed robbery involving actual violence, and the applicant was on a good behaviour bond; the individual and overall sentences were not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.']