Biles v R [2014] NSWCCA 170

Biles v R [2014] NSWCCA 170

Remorse was not overlooked in sentencing. The objective seriousness was appropriately assessed, given the elderly and vulnerable victims and the nature of the offending. Reference to statistics and other cases was not decisive as circumstances vary. The sentence, although stern, was not manifestly excessive.

Parties
Applicant: Douglas Biles; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Sentence / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence refused
Legal Topics
Aggravated Break Enter and Steal, Sentencing, Objective Seriousness, Remorse, Manifestly Excessive Sentence
Criminal Law Aggravated Break Enter and Steal Sentencing Objective Seriousness Remorse Manifestly Excessive Sentence

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Biles

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Sentence / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to mention remorse in sentencing remarks meant it was overlooked
  2. 2 Whether sentencing judge erred in assessment of objective seriousness of offence
  3. 3 Whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

Remorse was not overlooked in sentencing. The objective seriousness was appropriately assessed, given the elderly and vulnerable victims and the nature of the offending. Reference to statistics and other cases was not decisive as circumstances vary. The sentence, although stern, was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against sentence refused