Hunt v R [2021] NSWCCA 192

Hunt v R [2021] NSWCCA 192

The sentencing judge failed to backdate the aggregate sentence to account for the first period of pre-sentence custody and did not give reasons or demonstrate how that period was otherwise taken into account for all offences; this failure amounted to error requiring appellate intervention. Consequently, the sentence was quashed, and the applicant resentenced, properly crediting both periods of pre-sentence custody.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence; Resentencing by Appellate Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed and resentenced by appellate court.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'pre Sentence Custody' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'domestic Violence Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'principles for Backdating Sentences']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'pre Sentence Custody' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'domestic Violence Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'principles for Backdating 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 Against Sentence; Resentencing by Appellate Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether trial judge erred by failing to backdate sentence to reflect first period of pre-sentence custody' 'Whether reasons were required if pre-sentence custody not reflected by backdating' 'Whether pre-sentence custody was properly taken into account for all offences when imposing an aggregate sentence' 'Whether aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge failed to backdate the aggregate sentence to account for the first period of pre-sentence custody and did not give reasons or demonstrate how that period was otherwise taken into account for all offences; this failure amounted to error requiring appellate intervention. Consequently, the sentence was quashed, and the applicant resentenced, properly crediting both periods of pre-sentence custody.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed and resentenced by appellate court.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is allowed.' 'The sentence imposed by the District Court on 13 July 2020 is quashed.' 'In lieu, the applicant is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 9 years and 6 months, commencing on 17 January 2019 and expiring on 16 July 2028, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 8...