R.V. EDWIN SMITH [2001] NSWCCA 475

R.V. EDWIN SMITH [2001] NSWCCA 475

The applicant did not demonstrate that the non-parole period of five years and nine months on the seven year sentence was outside the sentencing judge's discretion. The evidence before the sentencing judge about the applicant's future parole needs was limited, and the evidence that he had reduced his drinking suggested good prospects that he could address his alcohol problem during the substantial custodial period. The sentencing judge's estimate that one year and three months on parole was sufficient was not shown to be wrong.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'aggravated Sexual Offence' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'alcohol Abuse and Rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'aggravated Sexual Offence' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'alcohol Abuse and Rehabilitation']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to fix a non-parole period somewhat less than three-quarters of the seven year head sentence on the first count.' "Whether the applicant's intoxication, history of alcohol abuse, related criminal history, and evidence of overcoming alcohol addiction required a shorter non-parole period."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not demonstrate that the non-parole period of five years and nine months on the seven year sentence was outside the sentencing judge's discretion. The evidence before the sentencing judge about the applicant's future parole needs was limited, and the evidence that he had reduced his drinking suggested good prospects that he could address his alcohol problem during the substantial custodial period. The sentencing judge's estimate that one year and three months on parole was sufficient was not shown to be wrong.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']