Hunt v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 28

Hunt v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 28

Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge did not relevantly err: the sentence for the offence involving being in company was not aggravated on that basis, special circumstances did not warrant further departure from the statutory ratio in light of the earlier sentences and prior leniency, and the total effect of the sentences for the offences and Form 1 matters was not disproportionate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Refused
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['excessive Sentence' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'de Simoni Principle' 'parole Revocation' 'form 1 Offences' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['excessive Sentence' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'de Simoni Principle' 'parole Revocation' 'form 1 Offences' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the overall sentences imposed were excessive having regard to the applicant's separation from her children and the total period in custody." 'Whether the totality principle had been respected when the sentences were considered together with earlier sentences for which parole had been revoked.' 'Whether special circumstances warranted departure from the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the total sentence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge breached the De Simoni principle by referring to some offences being committed in company.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge did not relevantly err: the sentence for the offence involving being in company was not aggravated on that basis, special circumstances did not warrant further departure from the statutory ratio in light of the earlier sentences and prior leniency, and the total effect of the sentences for the offences and Form 1 matters was not disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.']