Gomez v The Queen [2002] FCAFC 262

Gomez v The Queen [2002] FCAFC 262

The sentence imposed was within the discretion of the sentencing judge and was not sufficiently tainted by error, even if an incorrect assumption about parole revocation was made. Repeated breaches and revocations contributed to the delay, not the sentence alone. No manifest injustice or question of legal principle arose to justify a grant of leave to appeal out of time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'parole' 'appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'parole' 'appeal Against Sentence']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge wrongly assumed that the sentence imposed would not revoke parole under the Parole Act 1976 (ACT)' 'Whether any such assumption sufficiently tainted the sentence or resulted in manifest injustice']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed was within the discretion of the sentencing judge and was not sufficiently tainted by error, even if an incorrect assumption about parole revocation was made. Repeated breaches and revocations contributed to the delay, not the sentence alone. No manifest injustice or question of legal principle arose to justify a grant of leave to appeal out of time.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • ['The application be refused.' 'There be no order for costs.']