Merkel v R [2019] NSWCCA 212
The applicant’s intellectual disability was not shown to have a causal link to his offending and was properly considered in his subjective circumstances; the sentencing judge made no error in assessment of objective seriousness, in not finding special circumstances, or in the final sentence imposed, which was not manifestly excessive.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 September 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence; Leave Granted; Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['appeal Against Sentence' 'intellectual Disability and Sentencing' 'moral Culpability' 'assessment of Special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess in Sentencing']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence; Leave Granted; Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by not taking into account the applicant's intellectual disability in assessing moral culpability and objective seriousness" 'Whether there was an error in failing to find special circumstances to vary the statutory parole ratio' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive']
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant’s intellectual disability was not shown to have a causal link to his offending and was properly considered in his subjective circumstances; the sentencing judge made no error in assessment of objective seriousness, in not finding special circumstances, or in the final sentence imposed, which was not manifestly excessive.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal granted' 'Appeal dismissed']
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