Haydon v R [2012] NSWCCA 151

Haydon v R [2012] NSWCCA 151

The Court held that the differences in the roles played by the applicant and Davis and the additional Form 1 matters justified the disparity in sentences. The applicant's greater objective criminality and the unique Form 1 offences meant the sentencing judge was entitled to impose a longer sentence. There was no justifiable sense of grievance warranting appellate intervention, but the commencement date of the sentence should be adjusted to reflect the proper concurrency intended by the sentencing judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. Commencement date of sentence varied to preserve concurrency.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'parity Principle' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'parity Principle' 'accumulation of Sentences' '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 Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the disparity between the applicant's and co-offender's sentences gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance." 'Whether the judge erred in assessing the relative culpability of co-offenders and in accumulation of sentences.' 'Whether the sentence commencement date should be varied under s 52 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the differences in the roles played by the applicant and Davis and the additional Form 1 matters justified the disparity in sentences. The applicant's greater objective criminality and the unique Form 1 offences meant the sentencing judge was entitled to impose a longer sentence. There was no justifiable sense of grievance warranting appellate intervention, but the commencement date of the sentence should be adjusted to reflect the proper concurrency intended by the sentencing judge.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. Commencement date of sentence varied to preserve concurrency.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.' 'The commencement date of the sentence imposed by McLoughlin DCJ for the aggravated break and enter contrary to s 113(2) Crimes Act be varied pursuant to s 52 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act so that the sentence is imprisonment for 3 years 3 months consisting of a...