R v Stewart [2005] NSWCCA 290
The applicant should not be punished twice for overlapping criminal conduct; the sentence for break, enter and steal should have included a credit for the three months served for goods in custody, as the goods in custody charge arose directly from the same criminal conduct.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 August 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; sentence quashed and substituted
- Legal Topics
- ['sentencing' 'break, Enter and Steal' 'double Punishment' 'credit for Prior Imprisonment' 'overlapping Criminal Conduct']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the applicant was punished twice for overlapping criminal conduct' 'Whether credit should be given for prior imprisonment for the criminal conduct' 'Whether sentencing was in accordance with applicable legal principles']
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant should not be punished twice for overlapping criminal conduct; the sentence for break, enter and steal should have included a credit for the three months served for goods in custody, as the goods in custody charge arose directly from the same criminal conduct.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed and substituted
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal be granted' 'Appeal be allowed' 'Original sentences for Counts 1 and 2 quashed' 'Count 1: imprisonment for a fixed term of 12 months commencing 27 February 2004 and expiring 26 February 2005' 'Count 2: imprisonment for a non-parole period of 12 months commencing 27 August 2004 and expiring 26...
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