Mapp v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 269

Mapp v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 269

The appeal succeeded because the sentencing exercise miscarried: the sentences on Charge 2 and Count 1 were too long, the accumulation produced a manifestly excessive aggregate sentence when presentence custody, totality and the applicant's youth were considered, and the finding of special circumstances was not adequately reflected in the aggregate sentence. The Court resentenced the applicant on Charge 1, Charge 2 and Count 1 while confirming the other sentences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court; Leave Granted and Appeal Allowed in Part
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in respect of Charge 1 (CAN 020), Charge 2 (CAN 004) and Count 1 (CAN 008); those sentences quashed and replaced; all other sentences confirmed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Break Enter and Steal' 'theft and Dishonesty Offences' 'form 1 Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'youth of Offender' 'intellectual Limitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Break Enter and Steal' 'theft and Dishonesty Offences' 'form 1 Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'youth of Offender' 'intellectual Limitation']

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 Sentences Imposed in the District Court; Leave Granted and Appeal Allowed in Part

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating the applicant's personal circumstances as diminishing the objective gravity of the offences." 'Whether the individual sentences for Charge 1, Charge 2 and Count 1 were excessive.' "Whether the accumulation of sentences produced an excessive aggregate sentence having regard to totality and the applicant's youth." 'Whether the finding of special circumstances was adequately reflected in the aggregate sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the sentencing exercise miscarried: the sentences on Charge 2 and Count 1 were too long, the accumulation produced a manifestly excessive aggregate sentence when presentence custody, totality and the applicant's youth were considered, and the finding of special circumstances was not adequately reflected in the aggregate sentence. The Court resentenced the applicant on Charge 1, Charge 2 and Count 1 while confirming the other sentences.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in respect of Charge 1 (CAN 020), Charge 2 (CAN 004) and Count 1 (CAN 008); those sentences quashed and replaced; all other sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed in respect of Charge 1 (CAN 020), Charge 2 (CAN 004) and Count 1 (CAN 008).' 'The sentences in respect of Charge 1 (CAN 020), Charge 2 (CAN 004) and Count 1 (CAN 008) quashed.' 'In respect of Charge 1 (CAN 020), including the offences on the Form 1, the applicant sentenced...