Nean v R [2019] NSWCCA 164

Nean v R [2019] NSWCCA 164

Errors in the assessment of time spent in custody not solely referable to the offences and mischaracterisation of the applicant's criminal antecedents demonstrate error in sentencing. Sentencing principles require individual assessment subject to Bugmy considerations and the objective seriousness of offending with appropriate weighting as per Munda. As a result, the original sentence was quashed and the appellant re-sentenced with an adjusted commencement date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; substituted sentence imposed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'robbery in Company' 'police Pursuit' 'sentencing Principles' 'bugmy Principles' 'parity' 'time Spent in Custody' 'criminal Antecedents']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'robbery in Company' 'police Pursuit' 'sentencing Principles' 'bugmy Principles' 'parity' 'time Spent in Custody' 'criminal Antecedents']

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 / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sentencing judge erred in assessment of time spent in custody solely referable to index offences' 'Whether sentencing judge erred in application of plea discount' 'Whether sentencing judge erred in applying Bugmy principles' "Whether sentencing judge erred in assessment of applicant's criminal antecedents" 'Whether applicant has a justifiable sense of grievance due to sentence imposed on co-offender' 'Need for re-sentence; whether no lesser sentence is warranted; adjustment to commencement date']

Ratio Decidendi

Errors in the assessment of time spent in custody not solely referable to the offences and mischaracterisation of the applicant's criminal antecedents demonstrate error in sentencing. Sentencing principles require individual assessment subject to Bugmy considerations and the objective seriousness of offending with appropriate weighting as per Munda. As a result, the original sentence was quashed and the appellant re-sentenced with an adjusted commencement date.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; substituted sentence imposed

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal' 'The appeal is allowed' 'The sentence imposed by Judge McLennan SC in the District Court on 30 April 2018 is quashed' 'In lieu, sentence the appellant to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 8 years and 9 months commencing 1 February 2017 and expiring 31 October 2025 with a non-parole...