R v Carter [1999] NSWCCA 376

R v Carter [1999] NSWCCA 376

The disparity ground failed because Simon Haigh's circumstances were materially different: he was found not to have planned or initiated the offence, did not take the money, had a much lesser record, pleaded guilty earlier and gave evidence against the applicant. The delay ground failed because the applicant substantially bore responsibility for the adjournments, was not left in relevant suspense after being warned a full-time custodial sentence was contemplated, and had already received credit for rehabilitation achieved during the delay. The sentence was within the permissible range, so leave was granted but the appeal was dismissed and the sentence confirmed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal dismissed, sentence confirmed.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'delay in Sentencing' 'parity With Co Offender' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company' 'delay in Sentencing' 'parity With Co Offender' 'leave to 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 Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by not taking into account the delay between the applicant's plea of guilty and sentence as a basis for leniency." 'Whether the sentence demonstrated erroneous disparity when compared with the sentence imposed on co-offender Simon Haigh.' 'Whether the sentence imposed for robbery in company was within the permissible range.']

Ratio Decidendi

The disparity ground failed because Simon Haigh's circumstances were materially different: he was found not to have planned or initiated the offence, did not take the money, had a much lesser record, pleaded guilty earlier and gave evidence against the applicant. The delay ground failed because the applicant substantially bore responsibility for the adjournments, was not left in relevant suspense after being warned a full-time custodial sentence was contemplated, and had already received credit for rehabilitation achieved during the delay. The sentence was within the permissible range, so leave was granted but the appeal was dismissed and the sentence confirmed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal dismissed, sentence confirmed.

Orders

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