R v KS [2005] NSWCCA 87

R v KS [2005] NSWCCA 87

Although the Respondent plainly failed to comply with his undertaking and the Crown established a prima facie basis for s 5DA intervention, the Court declined to vary the sentence. The serious custodial failure in placing the Respondent with A, the delay and continued custody after parole eligibility, and the likelihood that the discount for future assistance was relatively small meant that any adjustment would amount to impermissible tinkering.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence Under S 5 DA of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Sentence as Varied on an Earlier Crown Appeal
Outcome
Crown appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery' 'crown Appeal Against Reduced Sentence for Assistance to Authorities' 'failure to Comply With Undertaking to Give Evidence' 'discount for Plea and Assistance' 'discretion to Decline Appellate Intervention' 'custodial Arrangements for Prisoner Witnesses']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['armed Robbery' 'crown Appeal Against Reduced Sentence for Assistance to Authorities' 'failure to Comply With Undertaking to Give Evidence' 'discount for Plea and Assistance' 'discretion to Decline Appellate Intervention' 'custodial Arrangements for Prisoner Witnesses']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence Under S 5 DA of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Sentence as Varied on an Earlier Crown Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Respondent failed wholly or partly to fulfil an undertaking to assist law enforcement authorities by giving evidence against A.' "Whether the Court should vary the Respondent's sentence under s 5DA of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912." 'Whether custodial mismanagement in transporting and holding the Respondent with A, delay, and the likely size of the assistance discount justified declining to intervene.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Respondent plainly failed to comply with his undertaking and the Crown established a prima facie basis for s 5DA intervention, the Court declined to vary the sentence. The serious custodial failure in placing the Respondent with A, the delay and continued custody after parole eligibility, and the likelihood that the discount for future assistance was relatively small meant that any adjustment would amount to impermissible tinkering.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal dismissed.']