Vassiliou v R [2022] NSWCCA 91

Vassiliou v R [2022] NSWCCA 91

The sentencing judge substantially complied with s 23 because the irrelevant s 23(2) matters did not need express discussion and the applicant's limited assistance justified only a small discount. A 5% discount was within discretion given the assistance was prompted by the judge, given about one year after the offences, did not include an offer to give evidence, was of minimal utility and did not lead to charges. The parity ground failed because it was not raised below and, in any event, the applicant and young person were materially different in age, criminal history, role in the violence, sentencing regime and subjective circumstances, so no objective justifiable sense of grievance arose.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'assistance to Authorities' 'discount for Assistance' 'parity Principle' 'juvenile Co Offender' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['robbery in Company' 'assistance to Authorities' 'discount for Assistance' 'parity Principle' 'juvenile Co Offender' 'form 1 Offences']

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 and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by not having regard to all matters in s 23(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) when assessing assistance to authorities.' 'Whether a 5% discount for assistance to authorities was open to the sentencing judge.' "Whether the disparity between the applicant's sentence and the sentence imposed on his young co-offender gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge substantially complied with s 23 because the irrelevant s 23(2) matters did not need express discussion and the applicant's limited assistance justified only a small discount. A 5% discount was within discretion given the assistance was prompted by the judge, given about one year after the offences, did not include an offer to give evidence, was of minimal utility and did not lead to charges. The parity ground failed because it was not raised below and, in any event, the applicant and young person were materially different in age, criminal history, role in the violence, sentencing regime and subjective circumstances, so no objective justifiable sense of grievance arose.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']