Ta'ala v R [2008] NSWCCA 132
The sentencing judge did not err in the objective assessment of the brutality and seriousness of the murders nor in cumulating the sentences. However, the judge failed to ensure the non parole period did not exceed 75% of the aggregate sentence, contrary to the apparent intent, requiring a reduction in the non parole period for the second count to achieve a 75% ratio overall.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 16 June 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- ['sentencing' 'murder' 'cumulation' 'non Parole Period' 'appeal Against Sentence']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for two counts of murder were manifestly excessive' 'Whether the approach to cumulation and setting of non parole periods was in accordance with law' 'Whether special circumstances justified deviation from the statutory ratio for non parole periods']
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge did not err in the objective assessment of the brutality and seriousness of the murders nor in cumulating the sentences. However, the judge failed to ensure the non parole period did not exceed 75% of the aggregate sentence, contrary to the apparent intent, requiring a reduction in the non parole period for the second count to achieve a 75% ratio overall.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part
Orders
- ['Application for extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal allowed in part.' 'Order specifying a non parole period of 26 years 6 months commencing 29 May 2014 and expiring 28 May 2040 in respect of murder of Tammy Lee MacKenzie quashed; new non parole period of 23 years 3 months...
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