Moye v R [2022] NSWCCA 96

Moye v R [2022] NSWCCA 96

The sentencing judge made two identifiable errors: acting on an incorrect maximum penalty for three offences and failing to properly account for the period of pre-sentence custody. The appeal is allowed and the applicant is re-sentenced to reflect the correct statutory maximum and proper accounting of custody.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal; Re Sentencing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'aggregate Sentence' 'backdating of Sentence' 'maximum Penalty Error' 'totality Principle' '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 Appeal / Sentence Appeal; Re Sentencing

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred regarding the maximum penalty for three offences' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in accounting for pre-sentence custody']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge made two identifiable errors: acting on an incorrect maximum penalty for three offences and failing to properly account for the period of pre-sentence custody. The appeal is allowed and the applicant is re-sentenced to reflect the correct statutory maximum and proper accounting of custody.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.' 'The appeal against sentence is allowed.' 'The sentence imposed by McLennan SC DCJ on 28 October 2020 is quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years and 9 months, commencing on 25 July 2020, with a non-parole...