R v HERNANDO [2005] NSWCCA 59
The sentencing judge did refer to aggravating elements that were ingredients of the offences, making out the first ground. However, the second ground was not made out as the applicant's breach of parole and its revocation was due to multiple failures, not primarily the commission of the offences, and the sentencing judge's decision was considered lenient in light of applicant's history and offences. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed pursuant to s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 February 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['sentencing' 'armed Robbery' 'parole' 'aggravating Factors' 'concurrency']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge wrongly took into account elements of the offences as aggravating features contrary to s 21A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by not backdating the sentence to be partially concurrent with expired balance of parole']
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge did refer to aggravating elements that were ingredients of the offences, making out the first ground. However, the second ground was not made out as the applicant's breach of parole and its revocation was due to multiple failures, not primarily the commission of the offences, and the sentencing judge's decision was considered lenient in light of applicant's history and offences. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed pursuant to s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed pursuant to s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment