Johnson v R, Moody v R [2010] NSWCCA 124

Johnson v R, Moody v R [2010] NSWCCA 124

The sentences imposed upon Johnson and Moody were found to be within the proper range of sentencing discretion, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, the aggravating features, offenders' criminal history, roles played, and parole status. The principles governing joint criminal enterprise and parity were applied, and differentiation based on individual conduct and circumstances was found justified. No error was shown that warranted interference with the sentencing discretion exercised.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted but appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'robbery' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'parity of Sentences' 'manifestly Excessive Sentences']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'robbery' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'parity of Sentences' 'manifestly Excessive Sentences']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive' 'Whether proper weight was given to personal deterrence and retribution' 'Whether proper effect was given to the principle of totality' 'Whether there was unjustified disparity between sentences for co-offenders in joint criminal enterprise']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed upon Johnson and Moody were found to be within the proper range of sentencing discretion, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, the aggravating features, offenders' criminal history, roles played, and parole status. The principles governing joint criminal enterprise and parity were applied, and differentiation based on individual conduct and circumstances was found justified. No error was shown that warranted interference with the sentencing discretion exercised.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted but appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • ['In the application of Paul Robert Johnson - grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal.' 'In the application of Michael Ronald Moody - grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal.']