Paul Darcey Armstrong v R [2013] NSWCCA 137
The Court exercised its power under s 59 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to vary only the commencement dates, not the terms, of existing sentences to prevent a custodial hiatus resulting from the quashing of the primary conviction and sentence.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 June 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Variation of Sentence Following Successful Appeal and Quashing of Conviction
- Outcome
- Sentences varied as to commencement dates only; no variation to terms or non-parole period.
- Legal Topics
- ['variation of Sentence' 'commencement Date of Sentence' 'quashed Conviction' 'section 59 Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Variation of Sentence Following Successful Appeal and Quashing of Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the commencement dates of sentences for unrelated offences should be varied following quashing of the primary conviction and sentence']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court exercised its power under s 59 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to vary only the commencement dates, not the terms, of existing sentences to prevent a custodial hiatus resulting from the quashing of the primary conviction and sentence.
Court Disposition
Sentences varied as to commencement dates only; no variation to terms or non-parole period.
Orders
- ['Vary the sentences imposed upon the appellant by her Honour Murrell DCJ on 13 August 2010 as follows: (1) Sexual intercourse without consent: imprisonment for a fixed term of 2 years and 6 months to commence on 4 December 2008 and to expire on 3 June 2011; (2) Sexual intercourse without consent: imprisonment for 4...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment