R v MJM [2004] NSWCCA 66

R v MJM [2004] NSWCCA 66

No error in the sentencing judge's approach or in the division of non-parole and parole periods; the sentences were appropriate given the seriousness and number of offences. Fresh evidence postdating sentencing cannot be admitted unless there was error in sentencing process. Leave to appeal against sentence granted, but appeal dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: MJM; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Appeal Determination
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Appeals, Break, Enter and Steal, Use of Weapon to Resist Arrest, Fresh Evidence
Criminal Law Sentencing Appeals Break, Enter and Steal Use of Weapon to Resist Arrest Fresh Evidence

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MJM

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentences imposed were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence could be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether special circumstances were properly considered in sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

No error in the sentencing judge's approach or in the division of non-parole and parole periods; the sentences were appropriate given the seriousness and number of offences. Fresh evidence postdating sentencing cannot be admitted unless there was error in sentencing process. Leave to appeal against sentence granted, but appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Content of sealed envelope (affidavit of comfort) returned to applicant.