KING v REGINA [2011] NSWCCA 46

KING v REGINA [2011] NSWCCA 46

The sentencing judge closely considered all relevant objective and subjective factors, and the use of terminology associated with a standard non-parole period did not disclose specific or latent error in context. The offence was objectively very serious, the applicant had not been completely truthful, had not...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'malicious Damage by Fire' 'objective Seriousness' 'subjective Factors' 'conditional Bond Breach']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'malicious Damage by Fire' 'objective Seriousness' 'subjective Factors' 'conditional Bond Breach']

Source-derived case record

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for the offence under s.112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by describing the offence as falling at the mid-range of objective seriousness, if not above it, where there was no standard non-parole period.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant's subjective circumstances."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge closely considered all relevant objective and subjective factors, and the use of terminology associated with a standard non-parole period did not disclose specific or latent error in context. The offence was objectively very serious, the applicant had not been completely truthful, had not demonstrated remorse, and had only fair prospects of rehabilitation. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

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