Regina v Kym [2002] NSWCCA 235

Regina v Kym [2002] NSWCCA 235

The application for extension of time was refused because the application was filed about 16 months after sentence, no justifiable reason for that delay was advanced, and the proposed appeal did not disclose error warranting intervention: the sentencing judge's failure to record reasons under s 45(2) did not invalidate the sentence, the remarks on sentence indicated implied consideration of the matter, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and for Extension of Time / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
['periodic Detention' 'revocation by Parole Board' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'non Parole Period' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['periodic Detention' 'revocation by Parole Board' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'non Parole Period' 'manifest Excess']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and for Extension of Time / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to apply for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on 25 May 2000.' 'Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the original sentence after the Parole Board revoked the periodic detention order.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by declining to set a non-parole period without recording reasons.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the application was filed about 16 months after sentence, no justifiable reason for that delay was advanced, and the proposed appeal did not disclose error warranting intervention: the sentencing judge's failure to record reasons under s 45(2) did not invalidate the sentence, the remarks on sentence indicated implied consideration of the matter, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time should be refused.']