Regina v Joseph Brian Dickinson [2005] NSWCCA 284

Regina v Joseph Brian Dickinson [2005] NSWCCA 284

The sentence was not contrary to law because the Court had determined the total sentence of two years and two months before considering periodic detention, did not increase or vary the sentence because it was to be served as periodic detention, and gave sufficient reasons under s45(2) for declining to set a non-parole period by referring to the conditions of supervision that would apply.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Application Under S43 Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 / Application in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal to Reopen Proceedings to Correct an Asserted Sentencing Error
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['non Parole Period' 'parole Period' 'periodic Detention' 'correction of Sentencing Errors' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['non Parole Period' 'parole Period' 'periodic Detention' 'correction of Sentencing Errors' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing Application Under S43 Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 / Application in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal to Reopen Proceedings to Correct an Asserted Sentencing Error

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence was contrary to law because the Court declined to set a non-parole period.' 'Whether the Court failed to comply with s45(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act by not recording sufficient reasons for declining to set a non-parole period.' 'Whether the Court erred by having regard to the conditions of supervision ordinarily applying to periodic detention when declining to set a non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was not contrary to law because the Court had determined the total sentence of two years and two months before considering periodic detention, did not increase or vary the sentence because it was to be served as periodic detention, and gave sufficient reasons under s45(2) for declining to set a non-parole period by referring to the conditions of supervision that would apply.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.']