Carroll v R [2011] NSWCCA 200

Carroll v R [2011] NSWCCA 200

The sentencing judge erred in finding that the offence fell somewhere higher up the scale than the Henry range. In the circumstances, including limited violence, no weapon, no serious injury, a small amount taken, lack of victim vulnerability, opportunistic offending and the applicant's effective assistance in identifying the co-offender, a lesser sentence was warranted in law. No error was established on parity, drug and alcohol affectation, or the finding that lack of harm was not a mitigating factor.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, original sentence quashed, and applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'guideline Judgments' 'parity With Co Offender' 'drug and Alcohol Affectation' 'mitigating Factors' 'assistance to Authorities']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company' 'guideline Judgments' 'parity With Co Offender' 'drug and Alcohol Affectation' 'mitigating Factors' 'assistance to Authorities']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was open to the sentencing judge to find that the offence fell somewhere higher up the scale than the Henry guideline range.' 'Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance that her sentence was not more significantly lower than that of the co-offender.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's affectation by drugs and alcohol at the time of the offence." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the lack of harm to the victim was not a mitigating factor.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in finding that the offence fell somewhere higher up the scale than the Henry range. In the circumstances, including limited violence, no weapon, no serious injury, a small amount taken, lack of victim vulnerability, opportunistic offending and the applicant's effective assistance in identifying the co-offender, a lesser sentence was warranted in law. No error was established on parity, drug and alcohol affectation, or the finding that lack of harm was not a mitigating factor.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, original sentence quashed, and applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal.' 'Quash the sentence imposed by Freeman DCJ on 25 June 2010.' 'In lieu of the sentence imposed by Freeman DCJ the applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months commencing on 16 April 2010 and expiring on 15...