R v STAHL [1999] NSWCCA 160

R v STAHL [1999] NSWCCA 160

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not show that the sentencing judge made any error of principle or that the five-year sentence, comprising a three-year minimum term and a two-year additional term, fell outside the range of the sentencing discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'armed Robbery' 'excessive Sentence' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'armed Robbery' 'excessive Sentence' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence for robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon was excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge made an error of principle or imposed a sentence outside the proper range of sentencing discretion.' 'Whether events occurring since sentence could be taken into account in determining whether the sentence fell outside the sentencing discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not show that the sentencing judge made any error of principle or that the five-year sentence, comprising a three-year minimum term and a two-year additional term, fell outside the range of the sentencing discretion.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.']