Simmons v R [2020] NSWCCA 16
The sentencing judge maintained the necessary distinction between assessment of objective seriousness and subjective aggravating factors. There was no error established in the judge's approach or imposition of the aggregate sentence, which was within the accepted range and not manifestly excessive.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 February 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Hearing
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['objective Seriousness' 'aggravating Factors' 'manifest Excess' 'principle of Proportionality' 'aggregate Sentence']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by taking into account the applicant's record of previous convictions in assessment of objective seriousness" 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by taking into account that the applicant was on conditional liberty in assessment of objective seriousness' 'Whether there was an error in application of the principle of proportionality' 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive']
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge maintained the necessary distinction between assessment of objective seriousness and subjective aggravating factors. There was no error established in the judge's approach or imposition of the aggregate sentence, which was within the accepted range and not manifestly excessive.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment