Borri v R [2023] NSWCCA 166
The appeal was allowed because the sentencing judgment did not indicate or record, when passing sentence, whether the statutory sentencing discount for the applicant's guilty pleas was applied and how the sentences were calculated, contrary to s 25F(7). The Court ignored the later amendment to the published judgment and hyperlink to JusticeLink entries because of the timing and uncertainty about reliability. There was significant doubt that the applicant received the benefit of his early guilty pleas, creating patent error and requiring the Court to resentence him. On resentencing, the Court imposed an aggregate sentence of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years, taking into...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 June 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Sentence Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
- Outcome
- Extension of time granted, leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, District Court aggregate sentence quashed, and the applicant resentenced to an aggregate sentence of 14 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years.
- Legal Topics
- ['statutory Sentencing Discount for Guilty Plea' 'section 25 F(7) Disclosure and Recording Requirements' 'aggregate Sentences and Indicative Sentences' 'resentencing' 'sexual Offences Against Children']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Sentence Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether time should be extended to lodge the notice of intention to appeal.' "Whether the sentencing Judge failed to take into account the applicant's early pleas of guilty or failed to apply the statutory sentencing discount." 'Whether the sentencing Judge failed to comply with s 25F(7) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) by not indicating and recording how any sentencing discount was applied, or why it was not applied.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the Court should ignore the later amendment to the NSW Caselaw judgment and hyperlink to JusticeLink entries stating that a 25% discount was included.']
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was allowed because the sentencing judgment did not indicate or record, when passing sentence, whether the statutory sentencing discount for the applicant's guilty pleas was applied and how the sentences were calculated, contrary to s 25F(7). The Court ignored the later amendment to the published judgment and hyperlink to JusticeLink entries because of the timing and uncertainty about reliability. There was significant doubt that the applicant received the benefit of his early guilty pleas, creating patent error and requiring the Court to resentence him. On resentencing, the Court imposed an aggregate sentence of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years, taking into...
Court Disposition
Extension of time granted, leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, District Court aggregate sentence quashed, and the applicant resentenced to an aggregate sentence of 14 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years.
Orders
- ['Extend time in which to lodge the notice of intention to appeal.' 'Grant leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Allow the appeal.' 'Quash the aggregate sentence imposed in the District Court on 5 February 2021 and in lieu thereof impose an aggregate sentence of 14 years commencing 26 June 2019 and expiring on 25 June...
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