PAPWORTH v R [2011] NSWCCA 253

PAPWORTH v R [2011] NSWCCA 253

The appeal failed because the sentencing judge did not err in dealing with the Form 1 matters, was not compelled to find special circumstances, was entitled to distinguish the applicant from his co-offender on the basis of instigation, the additional serious Form 1 intimidation offence, criminal history, lack of remorse and poorer rehabilitation prospects, and the applicant did not show that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Before the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'form 1 Offences' 'special Circumstances' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'manifest Excess' 'home Invasion' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'form 1 Offences' 'special Circumstances' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'manifest Excess' 'home Invasion' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Before the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to have regard to the fact that the matters on the Form 1 could have been dealt with in the Local Court and subject to lower maximum penalties.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to find special circumstances to justify a variation of the statutory ratio.' 'Whether the applicant had a justified sense of grievance in respect of the comparative sentences of the applicant and the co-offender.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the sentencing judge did not err in dealing with the Form 1 matters, was not compelled to find special circumstances, was entitled to distinguish the applicant from his co-offender on the basis of instigation, the additional serious Form 1 intimidation offence, criminal history, lack of remorse and poorer rehabilitation prospects, and the applicant did not show that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

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