Kane v R [2021] NSWCCA 250

Kane v R [2021] NSWCCA 250

The majority held that no specific error was shown and that the aggregate sentence was not so excessive as to permit an inference of sentencing error. The applicant committed a series of serious offences only days after release to parole, and the sentence reflected matters favourable to him, including a 25% discount for early pleas, special circumstances, backdating and substantial notional concurrency. The sentence was within the range open to the sentencing judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Break and Enter With Intent to Steal' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Steal' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence' 'form 1 Offences' 'parole and Conditional Liberty' 'backdating and Concurrency' 'subjective Circumstances' 'bugmy Considerations']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['aggravated Break and Enter With Intent to Steal' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Steal' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence' 'form 1 Offences' 'parole and Conditional Liberty' 'backdating and Concurrency' 'subjective Circumstances' 'bugmy Considerations']

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 Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentence of 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether error could be inferred from the sentence imposed despite no specific error being alleged.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient effect to the applicant's disadvantaged background, subjective circumstances and the backdating of the sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that no specific error was shown and that the aggregate sentence was not so excessive as to permit an inference of sentencing error. The applicant committed a series of serious offences only days after release to parole, and the sentence reflected matters favourable to him, including a 25% discount for early pleas, special circumstances, backdating and substantial notional concurrency. The sentence was within the range open to the sentencing judge.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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