Regina v Martin WOOD [2000] NSWCCA 155

Regina v Martin WOOD [2000] NSWCCA 155

Because the cancellation application was dealt with in the applicant's absence, when the appropriate course would have been to issue a warrant for his arrest and deal with the application in his presence, and because the evidence showed impressive rehabilitation efforts, an orthopaedic disability, concurrent service of the first three months with Local Court sentences, and other objective and subjective circumstances, the Court should intervene and vary the sentencing orders made after cancellation of periodic detention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed After Cancellation of a Periodic Detention Order
Outcome
The order made by Judge Rummery on 20 October 1995, to the extent that it involved sentencing the applicant to full-time custodial sentence, was quashed and new minimum and additional terms were imposed.
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'cancellation of Periodic Detention' 'detainee Absent From Cancellation Hearing' 'minimum and Additional Terms' 'special Circumstances' 'crown Representation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sentence Appeal' 'cancellation of Periodic Detention' 'detainee Absent From Cancellation Hearing' 'minimum and Additional Terms' 'special Circumstances' 'crown Representation']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed After Cancellation of a Periodic Detention Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the District Court should have proceeded to cancel the periodic detention order and impose full-time custodial sentences in the applicant's absence." 'Whether the minimum and additional terms imposed after cancellation of the periodic detention order should be varied in light of the evidence before the Court.' 'Whether special circumstances justified varying the ratio between the minimum and additional terms.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the cancellation application was dealt with in the applicant's absence, when the appropriate course would have been to issue a warrant for his arrest and deal with the application in his presence, and because the evidence showed impressive rehabilitation efforts, an orthopaedic disability, concurrent service of the first three months with Local Court sentences, and other objective and subjective circumstances, the Court should intervene and vary the sentencing orders made after cancellation of periodic detention.

Court Disposition

The order made by Judge Rummery on 20 October 1995, to the extent that it involved sentencing the applicant to full-time custodial sentence, was quashed and new minimum and additional terms were imposed.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is to serve a minimum term of 91 weeks from 27 April 1999 and expiring on 29 September 2000.' 'The applicant is to serve an additional term of 30 weeks commencing on 30 September 2000 and expiring on 20 August 2001.']