OH Hyunwook v R [2010] NSWCCA 148

OH Hyunwook v R [2010] NSWCCA 148

The sentencing judge did not err in considering restitution as relevant to remorse or in treating the fact that the offence occurred in the victim's temporary home as an important circumstance. Although the failure to refer to the standard non-parole period and to assess the offence by reference to a mid-range offence was error, the sustained attack, threats, choking, pursuit with a knife, serious injury and lasting consequences meant the applicant was dealt with leniently and no lesser sentence was warranted in law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['reckless Wounding' 'remorse and Restitution' 'aggravating Factors' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'sentence Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['reckless Wounding' 'remorse and Restitution' 'aggravating Factors' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'sentence Appeal']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating realistic remorse as requiring concrete expression by restitution.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in regarding the offence as important because it occurred in the victim's temporary home." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to refer to the standard non-parole period and to characterise the offence by reference to a mid-range offence.' 'Whether, despite sentencing error, some other sentence less severe was warranted in law under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in considering restitution as relevant to remorse or in treating the fact that the offence occurred in the victim's temporary home as an important circumstance. Although the failure to refer to the standard non-parole period and to assess the offence by reference to a mid-range offence was error, the sustained attack, threats, choking, pursuit with a knife, serious injury and lasting consequences meant the applicant was dealt with leniently and no lesser sentence was warranted in law.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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