R v Hansen [2002] NSWCCA 321

R v Hansen [2002] NSWCCA 321

Although the sentencing judge failed to comply with s 44(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 by fixing a non-parole period first and then a further period described as a parole period, the intended effective overall sentence was not outside the proper range of sentencing discretion. The appeal was therefore allowed to correct the sentencing error, the sentences were quashed, and the Applicant was re-sentenced in substantially the same effective terms with commencement dates adjusted to take account of 49 days of street time after escape from lawful custody.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court; Court of Criminal Appeal Re Sentencing
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, sentences quashed, applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'robbery' 'use Offensive Weapon to Prevent Lawful Apprehension' 'form of Sentence Under Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999' 'non Parole Period' 'totality' 'drug Addiction and Sentencing' 'form 1 Matters' 'street Time After Escape']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company' 'robbery' 'use Offensive Weapon to Prevent Lawful Apprehension' 'form of Sentence Under Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999' 'non Parole Period' 'totality' 'drug Addiction and Sentencing' 'form 1 Matters' 'street Time After Escape']

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 Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court; Court of Criminal Appeal Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed were expressed in the form required by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had power to readjust or re-sentence to correct errors in the expression of the sentences.' 'Whether the effective overall sentence was outside the range of a proper sentencing discretion.' "How to account for 49 days at liberty following the Applicant's escape from lawful custody."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge failed to comply with s 44(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 by fixing a non-parole period first and then a further period described as a parole period, the intended effective overall sentence was not outside the proper range of sentencing discretion. The appeal was therefore allowed to correct the sentencing error, the sentences were quashed, and the Applicant was re-sentenced in substantially the same effective terms with commencement dates adjusted to take account of 49 days of street time after escape from lawful custody.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, sentences quashed, applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['In respect of each of the robberies in company, imprisonment for 3 years, the sentences to be concurrent and deemed to have commenced on 2 September 1999.' 'In respect of the robbery at Bradbury, taking into account the matter on the Form 1, and in respect of the use of an offensive weapon to prevent apprehension,...