Anesbury v R [2009] NSWCCA 245

Anesbury v R [2009] NSWCCA 245

The sentencing judge expressly considered the applicant's medical and psychological material and took her compromised health and need for care into account in mitigation. The further material did not demonstrate that new kidney, liver or ovarian findings, or her back condition, compromised her health beyond what was recognised as likely when sentence was imposed. Justice Health was responding reasonably to her complaints, and no error in the sentencing approach was shown; subjective complaints about care for conditions assessed at sentencing did not justify reducing the sentence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence for Blackmail / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['blackmail' 'sentence' 'medical Conditions of Offender' 'care During Confinement by Justice Health']
['criminal Law and Procedure'] ['blackmail' 'sentence' 'medical Conditions of Offender' 'care During Confinement by Justice Health']

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 Against Severity of Sentence for Blackmail / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's further medical conditions and limited access to physiotherapy or hydrotherapy in custody." 'Whether post-sentence deterioration or newly asserted ailments justified appellate intervention on sentence.' "Whether the applicant's medical care in custody was shown to be compromised beyond what was recognised at sentencing."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge expressly considered the applicant's medical and psychological material and took her compromised health and need for care into account in mitigation. The further material did not demonstrate that new kidney, liver or ovarian findings, or her back condition, compromised her health beyond what was recognised as likely when sentence was imposed. Justice Health was responding reasonably to her complaints, and no error in the sentencing approach was shown; subjective complaints about care for conditions assessed at sentencing did not justify reducing the sentence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']