Tatana v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 398

Tatana v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 398

Although the sentencing judge did not err in rejecting remorse, rehabilitation, or ordinary special circumstances, the resulting non-parole period required the applicant to serve substantially longer in custody than co-offenders who had committed significantly more criminal activity. In this exceptional context, parity with co-offenders amounted to special circumstances justifying reduction of the non-parole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed so far as the non-parole period is concerned.
Legal Topics
['parity Between Co Offenders' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'remorse' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'larceny']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['parity Between Co Offenders' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'remorse' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'larceny']

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 Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant created unjustified disparity with sentences imposed on co-offenders.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by declining to find special circumstances under s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether the need to preserve parity with co-offenders could itself amount to special circumstances justifying a reduced non-parole period.' "Whether it was open to the sentencing judge to assess the applicant's conduct as more serious than that of Mr Dick." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in not accepting remorse or good prospects of rehabilitation as mitigating factors.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge did not err in rejecting remorse, rehabilitation, or ordinary special circumstances, the resulting non-parole period required the applicant to serve substantially longer in custody than co-offenders who had committed significantly more criminal activity. In this exceptional context, parity with co-offenders amounted to special circumstances justifying reduction of the non-parole period.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed so far as the non-parole period is concerned.

Orders

  • ['The non-parole period specified by Acting Judge Boulton is quashed.' 'In lieu, a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months is specified, to commence on 28 October 2005 and to expire on 27 July 2007, the day upon which the applicant is eligible to be released to parole.']