Carr v R [2014] NSWCCA 202

Carr v R [2014] NSWCCA 202

The sentencing judge erred by treating the applicant's motive as increasing objective seriousness: whether the motive was punishment for perceived conduct toward his daughter or revenge over Ms Brindle's relationship, it did not elevate moral culpability or objective seriousness and was relevant only to general and specific deterrence. However, the sentence was not manifestly excessive and no lesser sentence was warranted in law because the offending was very serious, planned, involved a disguised parcel bomb capable of detonation, noise, smoke, fear, minor burns and hearing damage, and called for punishment, personal deterrence and general deterrence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['knowingly Making an Improvised Explosive Device With Intent to Injure' 'manifest Excess' 'objective Seriousness' 'motive' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['knowingly Making an Improvised Explosive Device With Intent to Injure' 'manifest Excess' 'objective Seriousness' 'motive' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant's motive increased the objective seriousness of the offending." 'Whether the sentence of 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether, despite specific error concerning motive, a lesser sentence was warranted in law under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by treating the applicant's motive as increasing objective seriousness: whether the motive was punishment for perceived conduct toward his daughter or revenge over Ms Brindle's relationship, it did not elevate moral culpability or objective seriousness and was relevant only to general and specific deterrence. However, the sentence was not manifestly excessive and no lesser sentence was warranted in law because the offending was very serious, planned, involved a disguised parcel bomb capable of detonation, noise, smoke, fear, minor burns and hearing damage, and called for punishment, personal deterrence and general deterrence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']