Dalton v R [2008] NSWCCA 108

Dalton v R [2008] NSWCCA 108

The appeal failed because the differences between the applicant and DB were so great that no legitimate grievance could reasonably be engendered: the applicant was 18½ while DB had just turned 14, the applicant had a not insignificant prior criminal history and committed the offences while on conditional liberty, and the applicant played the lead role in threatening and inflicting violence. The four year full sentences were within the discretionary range, particularly given the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's criminal history and conditional liberty, and any severity was balanced by the lenient non-parole period and wholly concurrent sentences. No material sentencing error...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'parity and Proportionality' 'manifest Excess' 'co Offender Disparity' 'appellate Intervention in Sentence Appeals']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company' 'parity and Proportionality' 'manifest Excess' 'co Offender Disparity' 'appellate Intervention in Sentence Appeals']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance when compared with the sentence imposed on co-offender DB in the Children's Court." 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the differences between the applicant and DB were so great that no legitimate grievance could reasonably be engendered: the applicant was 18½ while DB had just turned 14, the applicant had a not insignificant prior criminal history and committed the offences while on conditional liberty, and the applicant played the lead role in threatening and inflicting violence. The four year full sentences were within the discretionary range, particularly given the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's criminal history and conditional liberty, and any severity was balanced by the lenient non-parole period and wholly concurrent sentences. No material sentencing error...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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