R v Haines [2001] NSWCCA 111

R v Haines [2001] NSWCCA 111

Although the applicant's original sentences were otherwise appropriate and the applicant's criminality exceeded Pitt's because he led and instigated the violent attacks, committed a separate cultivating offence, and had additional aggravating features, the effective sentence and non-parole period were disproportionate to Pitt's sentences. Pitt's sentences were lenient but not so obviously inadequate that intervention should be declined. The lack of due proportion gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, requiring the appeal to be allowed and the sentences on the first, second and third counts to be quashed and reduced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence; Extension of Time Granted
Outcome
Appeal allowed; leave to appeal granted; sentences on the first, second and third counts quashed and replaced; sentence on the fourth count undisturbed.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'stealing From the Person' 'cultivating a Prohibited Plant' 'parity Principle' 'fresh Evidence on Sentence' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company' 'stealing From the Person' 'cultivating a Prohibited Plant' 'parity Principle' 'fresh Evidence on Sentence' 'special Circumstances']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence; Extension of Time Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether fresh evidence concerning the applicant's mental health should be received on the sentence appeal." 'Whether the sentences imposed on the applicant were disproportionate when compared with the sentences imposed on co-offender Bradley Maxwell Pitt, giving rise to a justifiable sense of grievance under the parity principle.' "Whether the Court should reduce otherwise appropriate sentences because of lack of due proportion with a co-offender's sentences."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant's original sentences were otherwise appropriate and the applicant's criminality exceeded Pitt's because he led and instigated the violent attacks, committed a separate cultivating offence, and had additional aggravating features, the effective sentence and non-parole period were disproportionate to Pitt's sentences. Pitt's sentences were lenient but not so obviously inadequate that intervention should be declined. The lack of due proportion gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, requiring the appeal to be allowed and the sentences on the first, second and third counts to be quashed and reduced.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; leave to appeal granted; sentences on the first, second and third counts quashed and replaced; sentence on the fourth count undisturbed.

Orders

  • ['That leave to appeal be granted.' 'That the appeal be allowed and that the sentences imposed in respect of the first, second and third counts be quashed.' 'In lieu of the sentences imposed on the first and second counts the applicant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years to commence on 7 March 2000...