Hesketh v R [2021] NSWCCA 262

Hesketh v R [2021] NSWCCA 262

The Court held that both offences involved different legal elements and the sentencing judge appropriately assessed the criminality for each, properly applying the principle of totality and avoiding double punishment. The modest notional accumulation in the aggregate sentence reflected the factual overlap. There was no error in entering conviction for both offences or in imposing the aggregate sentence, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From District Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal against conviction granted; application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeals Against Conviction' 'appeals Against Sentence' 'double Punishment' 'principle of Totality' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'sentencing – Manifest Excess' 'concurrent Sentences']
['criminal Law'] ['appeals Against Conviction' 'appeals Against Sentence' 'double Punishment' 'principle of Totality' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'sentencing – Manifest Excess' 'concurrent Sentences']

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 / Appeal From District Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing a conviction and sentence for reckless wounding in addition to discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (double punishment)' 'Whether sentences should have been wholly concurrent due to factual overlap (principle of totality)' 'Whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that both offences involved different legal elements and the sentencing judge appropriately assessed the criminality for each, properly applying the principle of totality and avoiding double punishment. The modest notional accumulation in the aggregate sentence reflected the factual overlap. There was no error in entering conviction for both offences or in imposing the aggregate sentence, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal against conviction granted; application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against conviction.' 'Dismiss the appeal against conviction.' 'Dismiss the application for leave to appeal against sentence.']