HENNESSY, Michael John v R [2012] NSWCCA 241

HENNESSY, Michael John v R [2012] NSWCCA 241

The sentencing judge did not make appellable error. Each 3 year sentence for counts 1 to 7 was within range despite differences in amounts and periods because the offences were almost identical manifestations of the same planned criminal intent, and the concurrency and accumulation reflected totality. The possible availability of summary disposal did not require a lesser sentence where the seriousness and extent of the fraud justified indictment and the summary jurisdictional limit was not constraining. The individual sentences and aggregate sentence were not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['fixing Individual Sentences for Multiple Offences' 'accumulation and Concurrence' 'availability of Summary Disposal' 'manifest Excess' 'totality' 'commonwealth Fraud Offences' 'false Passport Offence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['fixing Individual Sentences for Multiple Offences' 'accumulation and Concurrence' 'availability of Summary Disposal' 'manifest Excess' 'totality' 'commonwealth Fraud Offences' 'false Passport Offence']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing the same penalty for counts 1 to 7 despite different amounts and time periods.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider that the offences could have been dealt with summarily.' 'Whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive or offended the totality principle.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not make appellable error. Each 3 year sentence for counts 1 to 7 was within range despite differences in amounts and periods because the offences were almost identical manifestations of the same planned criminal intent, and the concurrency and accumulation reflected totality. The possible availability of summary disposal did not require a lesser sentence where the seriousness and extent of the fraud justified indictment and the summary jurisdictional limit was not constraining. The individual sentences and aggregate sentence were not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

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