Cross v R [2022] NSWCCA 261

Cross v R [2022] NSWCCA 261

The sentencing judge did not double-count by treating the applicant's offence as more serious than Ms Priddle's and by considering the applicant's personal role in causing relatively serious actual bodily harm, because personal causation of the actual bodily harm was not an element of s 86(3). The judge was entitled to assess the applicant's offending as around the middle of the range for the specially aggravated offence, while assessing Ms Priddle's offending as below the middle of the range for the aggravated offence, and to take account of the higher maximum penalty, the applicant's leading and more violent role, and differences in rehabilitation prospects and criminal history....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence on Parity Ground; Leave Granted and Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['parity Principle' 'kidnapping' 'detaining a Person in Company With Intent to Obtain Financial Advantage' 'actual Bodily Harm' 'co Offender Disparity']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['parity Principle' 'kidnapping' 'detaining a Person in Company With Intent to Obtain Financial Advantage' 'actual Bodily Harm' 'co Offender Disparity']

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 Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence on Parity Ground; Leave Granted and Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance when her sentence was compared with the sentence imposed on co-offender Ms Priddle.' "Whether the sentencing judge double-counted the applicant's liability for the specially aggravated offence and her greater role in causing actual bodily harm." "Whether differences in objective seriousness and subjective circumstances justified the disparity between the applicant's sentence and Ms Priddle's sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not double-count by treating the applicant's offence as more serious than Ms Priddle's and by considering the applicant's personal role in causing relatively serious actual bodily harm, because personal causation of the actual bodily harm was not an element of s 86(3). The judge was entitled to assess the applicant's offending as around the middle of the range for the specially aggravated offence, while assessing Ms Priddle's offending as below the middle of the range for the aggravated offence, and to take account of the higher maximum penalty, the applicant's leading and more violent role, and differences in rehabilitation prospects and criminal history....

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']