Regina v Strbik [2004] NSWCCA 212

Regina v Strbik [2004] NSWCCA 212

The sentences imposed were appropriate to the applicant's criminality and were not manifestly excessive, but the sentencing judge erred in applying the totality principle because the aggregate sentence left a parole period of only six months and twenty nine days, which was markedly too short for supervision and drug rehabilitation after a long period in custody. Greater concurrency was required while preserving the length of the individual sentences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentences granted; appeals dismissed for counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10; appeals allowed for counts 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 with substitute sentences imposed.
Legal Topics
['car Rebirthing' 'severity of Sentence' 'totality' 'non Parole Period' 'parole Supervision' 'drug Rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['car Rebirthing' 'severity of Sentence' 'totality' 'non Parole Period' 'parole Supervision' 'drug Rehabilitation']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the total sentence of six years, six months and twenty nine days was excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to give effect to the applicant's subjective circumstances." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to find, or give effect to, special circumstances.' 'Whether the totality principle was adequately considered and implemented in respect of the parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed were appropriate to the applicant's criminality and were not manifestly excessive, but the sentencing judge erred in applying the totality principle because the aggregate sentence left a parole period of only six months and twenty nine days, which was markedly too short for supervision and drug rehabilitation after a long period in custody. Greater concurrency was required while preserving the length of the individual sentences.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentences granted; appeals dismissed for counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10; appeals allowed for counts 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 with substitute sentences imposed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentences granted.' 'Dismiss the appeals against sentence on counts 1, 2, 3 (taking into account Form One) 4, 8, 9 and 10.' 'Appeals against the sentences on counts 5, 6 and 7 allowed and those sentences quashed. In lieu thereof sentence the applicant on each of those counts to a fixed term...