Matthew Rose v R [2013] NSWCCA 71

Matthew Rose v R [2013] NSWCCA 71

The sentencing judge correctly applied the relevant guideline judgment, gave due consideration to the applicant's circumstances, and provided reasons for differentiating the applicant’s sentence from his co-offender. No material error or breach of the parity principle arose, and the sentences imposed were appropriate in the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'robbery in Company' 'assault With Intent to Rob' 'guideline Judgment' 'parity Principle']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'robbery in Company' 'assault With Intent to Rob' 'guideline Judgment' 'parity Principle']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider and apply the guideline judgment in R v Henry and Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346' 'Whether the sentences imposed gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance in comparison to a co-offender, engaging the parity principle']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge correctly applied the relevant guideline judgment, gave due consideration to the applicant's circumstances, and provided reasons for differentiating the applicant’s sentence from his co-offender. No material error or breach of the parity principle arose, and the sentences imposed were appropriate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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