Sampson v R [2014] NSWCCA 19

Sampson v R [2014] NSWCCA 19

The primary judge's sentencing discretion miscarried because the sentence of 3 years imprisonment with an 18 month non-parole period was manifestly excessive. The offending was spontaneous, secondary, not premeditated, not for gain, and did not in fact hinder police, while the applicant had strong subjective mitigating circumstances. Comparable cases involved significantly more serious objective circumstances. Although a sentence of 12 months imprisonment suspended under s 12 would have been warranted in law, the applicant had already spent about 11 months in custody, making an order under s 10A appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Determined by the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; no penalty imposed under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Legal Topics
['hindering Discovery of Evidence Concerning a Serious Indictable Offence' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'no Penalty Order Under S 10 A']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['hindering Discovery of Evidence Concerning a Serious Indictable Offence' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'no Penalty Order Under S 10 A']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Determined by the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence for hindering the discovery of evidence concerning a serious indictable offence under s 315(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was unreasonable or plainly unjust because it was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether, on re-sentencing, no penalty should be imposed under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.']

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge's sentencing discretion miscarried because the sentence of 3 years imprisonment with an 18 month non-parole period was manifestly excessive. The offending was spontaneous, secondary, not premeditated, not for gain, and did not in fact hinder police, while the applicant had strong subjective mitigating circumstances. Comparable cases involved significantly more serious objective circumstances. Although a sentence of 12 months imprisonment suspended under s 12 would have been warranted in law, the applicant had already spent about 11 months in custody, making an order under s 10A appropriate.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; no penalty imposed under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is allowed.' 'The sentence under appeal is quashed.' 'Pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, no penalty is imposed.' 'Reasons to be published on 28 February 2014.']