HARRISON v. REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 185

HARRISON v. REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 185

The sentencing judge did not commit appellable error in declining to find special circumstances or in fixing the effective non-parole period, and the sentences were not shown to be manifestly excessive. However, although the sentencing judge stated that pre-sentence custody had been taken into account, the sentences should have been expressed so as to make plain how that custody was accounted for; they should have been backdated to commence on 7 April 2005.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence From the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed only to the extent of backdating the sentences; other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
['special Circumstances' 'family Hardship' 'delay in Sentencing' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'statutory Ratio Between Non Parole Period and Head Sentence' 'pre Sentence Custody' 'backdating Sentence' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['special Circumstances' 'family Hardship' 'delay in Sentencing' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'statutory Ratio Between Non Parole Period and Head Sentence' 'pre Sentence Custody' 'backdating Sentence' 'manifest Excess']

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 From the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to find special circumstances based on delay and family hardship.' 'Whether the accumulation of sentences failed to allow sufficient time on parole.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to take account of the period spent in custody before sentence.' 'Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive in light of subjective factors, rehabilitation prospects and risk of re-offending.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not commit appellable error in declining to find special circumstances or in fixing the effective non-parole period, and the sentences were not shown to be manifestly excessive. However, although the sentencing judge stated that pre-sentence custody had been taken into account, the sentences should have been expressed so as to make plain how that custody was accounted for; they should have been backdated to commence on 7 April 2005.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed only to the extent of backdating the sentences; other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The applicant be granted leave to appeal.' 'The appeal be allowed, so far as backdating the sentence is concerned.' 'Count 1: The applicant be re-sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for three years to commence on 7 April 2005 and to expire on 6 April 2008.' 'Count 2: The applicant be re-sentenced to a...