R v Radic [2001] NSWCCA 174

R v Radic [2001] NSWCCA 174

The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in light of the property actually stolen (a drill of small value), failure to properly comply with s 51A procedure, applicant's chronic illness and hardships in custody, and insufficient allowance for the plea of guilty. The proper course was to grant leave to appeal, uphold the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and re-sentence to a lesser term.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the District Court, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld. Sentence imposed by Goldring DCJ set aside. New sentence of imprisonment for three years, non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months, specified dates for commencement and expiry; applicant to be released to parole on expiry of non-parole period.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'plea of Guilty' 'committal for Sentence' 'section 51 a Justices Act 1902' 'procedural Irregularity in Sentencing' 'particularisation of Offence' 'factors in Sentencing' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'plea of Guilty' 'committal for Sentence' 'section 51 a Justices Act 1902' 'procedural Irregularity in Sentencing' 'particularisation of Offence' 'factors in Sentencing' 'non Parole Period']

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 Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the District Court, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the value and nature of property stolen' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in sentencing procedure under s 51A Justices Act 1902 when applicant denied stealing property particularized in charge' 'Whether proper procedure was followed where applicant admitted only to theft of a drill, not the jewellery as charged' "Whether applicant's health and prison conditions warranted reduction in sentence"]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in light of the property actually stolen (a drill of small value), failure to properly comply with s 51A procedure, applicant's chronic illness and hardships in custody, and insufficient allowance for the plea of guilty. The proper course was to grant leave to appeal, uphold the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and re-sentence to a lesser term.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld. Sentence imposed by Goldring DCJ set aside. New sentence of imprisonment for three years, non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months, specified dates for commencement and expiry; applicant to be released to parole on expiry of non-parole period.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted' 'Appeal upheld' 'Sentence imposed by Goldring DCJ set aside' 'Applicant sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years, commencing 27 April 2000 and expiring 26 April 2003' 'Non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months, commencing 27 April 2000 and expiring 26 January 2002' 'Applicant to be released to...