Mark Andrew Hughes v R [2011] NSWCCA 226

Mark Andrew Hughes v R [2011] NSWCCA 226

The applicant did not demonstrate any error in the exercise of sentencing discretion; the judge properly considered the seriousness, duration, and circumstances of the offences, as well as the applicant's medical condition and hardship to family; the discretionary decision not to impose wholly concurrent sentences was justified.

Parties
Applicant: Mark Andrew Hughes; Crown Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Sentence Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentence, Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception, Concurrent Sentences, Sentencing Discretion, Hardship to Family, Medical Condition of Offender
Criminal Law Sentence Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception Concurrent Sentences Sentencing Discretion Hardship to Family Medical Condition of Offender

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Andrew Hughes

Applicant

Regina

Crown Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Sentence Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences should have been imposed concurrently
  2. 2 Whether there were inconsistencies in the sentences for various counts
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing judge failed to have regard to the applicant’s medical conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not demonstrate any error in the exercise of sentencing discretion; the judge properly considered the seriousness, duration, and circumstances of the offences, as well as the applicant's medical condition and hardship to family; the discretionary decision not to impose wholly concurrent sentences was justified.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed