Lovell v R; Dominey v R [2006] NSWCCA 222

Lovell v R; Dominey v R [2006] NSWCCA 222

The sentencing judge erred by treating the Applicants' guilty pleas and their timing as matters reducing the objective seriousness of the s.112(2) offences, and failed to undertake the required assessment of objective seriousness under the standard non-parole period framework. On the facts, including the retributive motive, absence of disguise, ready detectability, lack of personal gain, and the circumstances of entry and property damage, the s.112(2) offences were below the middle of the range of objective seriousness, although serious and frightening. After allowing for guilty plea discounts and subjective circumstances, the s.112(2) sentences were manifestly excessive. The s.195(a)...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the Campbelltown District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted for both Applicants; appeals allowed; District Court sentences quashed; Applicants resentenced by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'malicious Damage to Property' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'resentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'malicious Damage to Property' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'resentencing']

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 Sentence Appeal / Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the Campbelltown District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in using the standard non-parole period for the s.112(2) Crimes Act 1900 offences after pleas of guilty' 'Whether the sentencing judge wrongly treated the pleas of guilty and their timing as reducing the objective seriousness of the s.112(2) offences' 'Whether the sentences for the s.112(2) offences were manifestly excessive' 'Whether the sentences for the s.195(a) Crimes Act 1900 offences were manifestly excessive' "Whether Mr Dominey's sentence was affected by error concerning prior terms of imprisonment and his criminal history"]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by treating the Applicants' guilty pleas and their timing as matters reducing the objective seriousness of the s.112(2) offences, and failed to undertake the required assessment of objective seriousness under the standard non-parole period framework. On the facts, including the retributive motive, absence of disguise, ready detectability, lack of personal gain, and the circumstances of entry and property damage, the s.112(2) offences were below the middle of the range of objective seriousness, although serious and frightening. After allowing for guilty plea discounts and subjective circumstances, the s.112(2) sentences were manifestly excessive. The s.195(a)...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted for both Applicants; appeals allowed; District Court sentences quashed; Applicants resentenced by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Orders

  • ['With respect to Aaron John Dominey, leave to appeal against sentence is granted and the appeal is allowed.' 'With respect to Aaron John Dominey, sentences imposed at the Campbelltown District Court on 4 August 2005 are quashed.' 'With respect to Aaron John Dominey and the offence under s.112(2) Crimes Act 1900,...