R v Lesi [2010] NSWCCA 240

R v Lesi [2010] NSWCCA 240

The sentencing discretion miscarried because the judge failed to adequately analyse and reflect the objective seriousness of the offences, failed to give proper effect to serious Form 1 matters for count 1, failed to apply the Pearce requirements to individual sentences and totality, and gave excessive emphasis to youth and drug addiction. The resulting individual and aggregate sentences were manifestly inadequate, requiring the Crown appeal to be allowed and the respondent to be re-sentenced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal and Re Sentencing
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; sentences on counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 quashed; respondent re-sentenced to an aggregate non-parole period of 10 years commencing 10 November 2007 and expiring 9 November 2017, with a balance of term of 4 years expiring 9 November 2021.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery' 'attempted Armed Robbery' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'objective Seriousness' 'form 1 Matters' 'totality' 'drug Addiction' 'youth' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['armed Robbery' 'attempted Armed Robbery' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'objective Seriousness' 'form 1 Matters' 'totality' 'drug Addiction' 'youth' 'guilty Plea Discount']

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 and Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentences imposed failed to reflect the objective seriousness of the respondent's crimes." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to appropriately take into account offences on the Form 1 document when imposing sentence for count 1.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to impose sentences in accordance with Pearce v The Queen (1994) 194 CLR 610.' "Whether undue emphasis was given to the respondent's youth." "Whether undue emphasis was given to the respondent's drug addiction." 'Whether undue emphasis was given to the fact that the offences were not committed while the respondent was on parole.' 'Whether the sentences were manifestly inadequate and required re-sentencing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing discretion miscarried because the judge failed to adequately analyse and reflect the objective seriousness of the offences, failed to give proper effect to serious Form 1 matters for count 1, failed to apply the Pearce requirements to individual sentences and totality, and gave excessive emphasis to youth and drug addiction. The resulting individual and aggregate sentences were manifestly inadequate, requiring the Crown appeal to be allowed and the respondent to be re-sentenced.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; sentences on counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 quashed; respondent re-sentenced to an aggregate non-parole period of 10 years commencing 10 November 2007 and expiring 9 November 2017, with a balance of term of 4 years expiring 9 November 2021.

Orders

  • ['The Crown appeal in respect of the sentences for counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 is allowed.' 'The sentence in respect of count 1 is quashed and in lieu thereof the respondent is sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years to date from 10 November 2007 and to expire on 9 November 2013 with a...