R v Roberts [2003] NSWCCA 67

R v Roberts [2003] NSWCCA 67

The sentencing judge did not err in structuring partly concurrent and partly cumulative sentences for discrete armed robbery offences committed closely in time against different victims; the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive given the applicant’s criminal record, lack of guilty plea, and the crimes’ objective gravity.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: Grant John Roberts
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Armed Robbery, Sentencing, Manifestly Excessive Sentence, Concurrency and Cumulation
Criminal Law Armed Robbery Sentencing Manifestly Excessive Sentence Concurrency and Cumulation

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Grant John Roberts

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the total sentence imposed is manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether sufficient regard was had to the offences being part of one continuous episode
  3. 3 Appropriateness of partly concurrent and partly cumulative sentences for discrete offences

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in structuring partly concurrent and partly cumulative sentences for discrete armed robbery offences committed closely in time against different victims; the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive given the applicant’s criminal record, lack of guilty plea, and the crimes’ objective gravity.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • Appeal is dismissed.