Wiseman v R [2016] NSWCCA 61

Wiseman v R [2016] NSWCCA 61

No sentencing error was shown because the sentencing judge was clearly aware of the applicant's existing sentences, the partial accumulation of the new sentence, the totality issue, and the overall effect of the sentence. The judge was not obliged by s 44(2) to reduce the sentence to produce an effective non-parole period of 75% of the total head sentence, and the partial concurrency adopted adequately reflected totality while preserving a sentence appropriate to the overall criminality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'special Circumstances' 'partial Accumulation of Sentences' 'totality' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'special Circumstances' 'partial Accumulation of Sentences' 'totality' 'non Parole Period']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed properly to consider special circumstances in the context of partially accumulating the sentence upon sentences already being served.' 'Whether the sentencing judge overlooked the effect of partial accumulation on the ratio between the effective non-parole period and the total term of imprisonment.' 'Whether error was demonstrated in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

No sentencing error was shown because the sentencing judge was clearly aware of the applicant's existing sentences, the partial accumulation of the new sentence, the totality issue, and the overall effect of the sentence. The judge was not obliged by s 44(2) to reduce the sentence to produce an effective non-parole period of 75% of the total head sentence, and the partial concurrency adopted adequately reflected totality while preserving a sentence appropriate to the overall criminality.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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