Regina v Saba [2001] NSWCCA 9

Regina v Saba [2001] NSWCCA 9

The sentences imposed by Judge Ducker became manifestly excessive because they were imposed on the intended basis that the applicant's outstanding parole period would be subsumed in the New South Wales sentences, but the parole order had been registered in Queensland and Judge Ducker had no power to revoke it. Since the Queensland Community Corrections Board proposed to require the applicant to serve the balance, or a substantial part, of the parole period after completing the New South Wales sentences, the totality principle required reduction of the New South Wales sentences to fixed terms of 2 years and 3 months for the relevant counts.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeals allowed for counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 and sentences quashed and replaced with fixed terms; appeals dismissed for counts 7, 8 and 14.
Legal Topics
['totality Principle' 'interstate Parole Order Transfer' 'breach of Parole' 'manifest Excess' 'fixed Term Imprisonment']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'parole'] ['totality Principle' 'interstate Parole Order Transfer' 'breach of Parole' 'manifest Excess' 'fixed Term Imprisonment']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed by Judge Ducker were manifestly excessive when the applicant would also be required in Queensland to serve the balance, or a substantial part, of an earlier parole period.' 'Whether the totality principle required reduction of the New South Wales sentences to account for imprisonment to follow in Queensland after transfer and cancellation of the parole order.' "Whether Judge Ducker had power to revoke the applicant's parole after the parole order had been registered in Queensland."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed by Judge Ducker became manifestly excessive because they were imposed on the intended basis that the applicant's outstanding parole period would be subsumed in the New South Wales sentences, but the parole order had been registered in Queensland and Judge Ducker had no power to revoke it. Since the Queensland Community Corrections Board proposed to require the applicant to serve the balance, or a substantial part, of the parole period after completing the New South Wales sentences, the totality principle required reduction of the New South Wales sentences to fixed terms of 2 years and 3 months for the relevant counts.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeals allowed for counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 and sentences quashed and replaced with fixed terms; appeals dismissed for counts 7, 8 and 14.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against the sentences imposed in respect of counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 and count 2 granted.' 'Appeals allowed on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 and the sentences quashed.' 'In lieu of the sentences imposed, the applicant was sentenced on each of counts 1, 2,...