Book v R [2018] NSWCCA 58

Book v R [2018] NSWCCA 58

The sentence was not manifestly excessive. The sentencing Judge considered the serious indictable offence of stealing and the circumstance that the offence was committed in company, assessed the offence as well below the middle of the range, and also properly took into account planning, use of tools, entry into commercial premises, theft of items, property damage, the Applicant's prior similar offence, the need for general and specific deterrence, subjective circumstances, mental health, guarded rehabilitation prospects, guilty plea discount and parity with the co-offender. In light of the objective and subjective circumstances and the statutory guideposts, the sentence was well within...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the Bathurst District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'stealing' 'offending in Company' 'manifest Excess' 'objective Seriousness' 'specific Deterrence' 'general Deterrence' 'parity' 'rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'stealing' 'offending in Company' 'manifest Excess' 'objective Seriousness' 'specific Deterrence' 'general Deterrence' 'parity' 'rehabilitation']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the Bathurst District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for aggravated (in company) break, enter and commit serious indictable offence (stealing) contrary to s.112(2) Crimes Act 1900 was manifestly excessive.' 'How the objective seriousness of the offence should be assessed where the serious indictable offence was stealing and the circumstance of aggravation was that the offence was committed in company.' "Whether the Applicant's prior similar offending, subjective circumstances, mental health, rehabilitation prospects, plea of guilty and parity with the co-offender made the sentence unreasonable or plainly unjust."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was not manifestly excessive. The sentencing Judge considered the serious indictable offence of stealing and the circumstance that the offence was committed in company, assessed the offence as well below the middle of the range, and also properly took into account planning, use of tools, entry into commercial premises, theft of items, property damage, the Applicant's prior similar offence, the need for general and specific deterrence, subjective circumstances, mental health, guarded rehabilitation prospects, guilty plea discount and parity with the co-offender. In light of the objective and subjective circumstances and the statutory guideposts, the sentence was well within...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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