R v Henness [2004] NSWCCA 50

R v Henness [2004] NSWCCA 50

The sentencing judge erred by making no allowance for the applicant's two days of pre-sentence custody, so leave to appeal was granted, the appeal allowed and the sentence quashed and reimposed to commence two days earlier. The sentencing judge did not err in refusing to find special circumstances, because he had considered the relevant subjective features and the applicant did not demonstrate error in that conclusion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed and applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['maliciously Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm' 'sentence Appeal' 'pre Sentence Custody' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['maliciously Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm' 'sentence Appeal' 'pre Sentence Custody' 'special Circumstances' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in not allowing for a discrete period of two days of pre-sentence custody.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in not finding special circumstances within s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by making no allowance for the applicant's two days of pre-sentence custody, so leave to appeal was granted, the appeal allowed and the sentence quashed and reimposed to commence two days earlier. The sentencing judge did not err in refusing to find special circumstances, because he had considered the relevant subjective features and the applicant did not demonstrate error in that conclusion.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed and applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight years to commence on 12 June 2002 and expire on 11 June 2010.' 'The non-parole period is six years to commence on 12 June 2002 and expire on 11 June 2008.' 'The applicant is to be subject to supervision while on parole.']