Regina v Carroll [1999] NSWCCA 176

Regina v Carroll [1999] NSWCCA 176

The sentence was not manifestly excessive because, although at the high end of the range, it was imposed for an offence with a maximum penalty of fourteen years penal servitude, against an applicant with a significant record including armed robbery, committed while on parole and with further scheduled offences also committed while on parole and, after 30 December 1997, while on bail. The asserted mitigating matters did not require a substantially lower sentence, and no error in the sentencing approach was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Severity' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'assault With Intent to Rob' 'offending While on Parole' 'offences Taken Into Account on a Schedule']
['criminal Law and Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Severity' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'assault With Intent to Rob' 'offending While on Parole' 'offences Taken Into Account on a Schedule']

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 Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence of six years penal servitude for assault with intent to rob was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing adequately to account for the applicant's plea of guilty, remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, family support and efforts to address drug dependence." 'Whether considerations of totality required reduction of the sentence because the applicant was serving the balance of an earlier sentence after release to parole.' 'Whether the guideline judgment in The Queen v Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111 assisted the applicant in challenging the sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was not manifestly excessive because, although at the high end of the range, it was imposed for an offence with a maximum penalty of fourteen years penal servitude, against an applicant with a significant record including armed robbery, committed while on parole and with further scheduled offences also committed while on parole and, after 30 December 1997, while on bail. The asserted mitigating matters did not require a substantially lower sentence, and no error in the sentencing approach was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['That leave to appeal against sentence be granted.' 'That the appeal against sentence be dismissed.']