REGINA v. KING [1999] NSWCCA 16

REGINA v. KING [1999] NSWCCA 16

The appeal was allowed because the sentencing judge underweighted the need to denounce the respondent's conduct and to serve general deterrence, making the sentence manifestly inadequate. The Court also identified errors in failing properly to specify special circumstances for the sentence structure and in the parole supervision orders. Having regard to double jeopardy, the original sentence's imminent custodial expiry, the respondent's intoxication, disabilities and rehabilitation prospects, the appropriate substitute sentence was two years and six months penal servitude with a 12 month minimum term and an 18 month additional term under supervision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; new sentence substituted.
Legal Topics
['manifest Inadequacy' 'use Offensive Instrument to Prevent Lawful Apprehension' 'intoxication' 'general Deterrence' 'personal Deterrence' 'special Circumstances' 'parole Supervision']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manifest Inadequacy' 'use Offensive Instrument to Prevent Lawful Apprehension' 'intoxication' 'general Deterrence' 'personal Deterrence' 'special Circumstances' 'parole Supervision']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence of 12 months penal servitude with a six month minimum term for an offence under s.33B was manifestly inadequate.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to denunciation, general deterrence, personal deterrence and community protection in light of the respondent's prior record and commission of the offence while on a recognizance." 'Whether errors concerning special circumstances and parole supervision warranted appellate intervention.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the sentencing judge underweighted the need to denounce the respondent's conduct and to serve general deterrence, making the sentence manifestly inadequate. The Court also identified errors in failing properly to specify special circumstances for the sentence structure and in the parole supervision orders. Having regard to double jeopardy, the original sentence's imminent custodial expiry, the respondent's intoxication, disabilities and rehabilitation prospects, the appropriate substitute sentence was two years and six months penal servitude with a 12 month minimum term and an 18 month additional term under supervision.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; new sentence substituted.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is sentenced to penal servitude for two years and six months.' 'The minimum term is 12 months to date from 2 October 1998 and to expire on 1 October 1999.' 'The additional term is 18 months to date from 2 October 1999 and to expire on 1 April 2001.' 'The respondent is to be released to parole...