Rees v R [2012] NSWCCA 47

Rees v R [2012] NSWCCA 47

Although Mr Boyd's sentences produced some concurrency and a lower effective period attributable to the common offences, the difference arose because Mr Boyd was also being sentenced for other offences and the sentencing judge was required to apply the totality principle. The identical sentences imposed for the common offences reflected identical criminality, the discrepancy in effective terms was not marked or sufficient to create an objectively justifiable sense of grievance, and reducing the applicant's non-parole period would make the sentence inadequate for very serious offending.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['parity Principle' 'totality Principle' 'co Offender Sentencing Disparity' 'non Parole Period' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'intentionally or Recklessly Destroying Property in Company']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['parity Principle' 'totality Principle' 'co Offender Sentencing Disparity' 'non Parole Period' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'intentionally or Recklessly Destroying Property in Company']

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 in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance at the effective sentence to be served by co-offender Darren Boyd.' "Whether partial concurrency in Mr Boyd's sentences for other offences committed on bail created a marked and unjustified disparity requiring reduction of the applicant's sentence." "Whether any reduction of the applicant's sentence would make the sentence inadequate having regard to the seriousness of the offending."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although Mr Boyd's sentences produced some concurrency and a lower effective period attributable to the common offences, the difference arose because Mr Boyd was also being sentenced for other offences and the sentencing judge was required to apply the totality principle. The identical sentences imposed for the common offences reflected identical criminality, the discrepancy in effective terms was not marked or sufficient to create an objectively justifiable sense of grievance, and reducing the applicant's non-parole period would make the sentence inadequate for very serious offending.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']