CARMODY v R [2010] NSWCCA 323
No error in the sentencing discretion was shown. The plea was not entered at the earliest possible opportunity, and nothing before the Court indicated that the sentencing judge erred by allowing a 20 percent discount rather than 25 percent, even if the plea had been entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity after service of the DNA evidence.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 16 December 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['robbery Accompanied by Reckless Infliction of Actual Bodily Harm' 'recklessly Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'utilitarian Value of Plea' 'sentencing Discretion']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the utilitarian value of the applicant's guilty plea by allowing a 20 percent discount rather than 25 percent."]
Ratio Decidendi
No error in the sentencing discretion was shown. The plea was not entered at the earliest possible opportunity, and nothing before the Court indicated that the sentencing judge erred by allowing a 20 percent discount rather than 25 percent, even if the plea had been entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity after service of the DNA evidence.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']
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