R v Curry [2002] NSWCCA 109

R v Curry [2002] NSWCCA 109

The sentencing judge did not err. The applicant's case was distinguishable from R v Oinonen because his approach to the Crown did not define the basis on which he would plead guilty to manslaughter and occurred in the setting of a joint trial where it was difficult to identify any discount properly attributable to the offer. The sentencing judge nevertheless treated the offer as a matter properly to be taken into account, including as consistent with genuine remorse. Having regard to the applicant's involvement in two manslaughters, total criminality, subjective circumstances, and parity with comparable co-offenders, no lesser sentences were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manslaughter' 'sentence Appeal' 'offer to Plead Guilty' 'discount for Plea' 'remorse' 'willingness to Facilitate the Course of Justice' 'parity in Sentencing' 'joint Criminal Enterprise']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['manslaughter' 'sentence Appeal' 'offer to Plead Guilty' 'discount for Plea' 'remorse' 'willingness to Facilitate the Course of Justice' 'parity in Sentencing' 'joint Criminal Enterprise']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by not giving the applicant a further discount for the notional utilitarian value of his pre-trial offer to plead guilty to manslaughter.' "Whether R v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310 applied where the applicant's offer to plead guilty to manslaughter was undefined and the matter proceeded as a joint trial." "Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate having regard to the applicant's objective criminality, subjective circumstances, and parity with co-offenders."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err. The applicant's case was distinguishable from R v Oinonen because his approach to the Crown did not define the basis on which he would plead guilty to manslaughter and occurred in the setting of a joint trial where it was difficult to identify any discount properly attributable to the offer. The sentencing judge nevertheless treated the offer as a matter properly to be taken into account, including as consistent with genuine remorse. Having regard to the applicant's involvement in two manslaughters, total criminality, subjective circumstances, and parity with comparable co-offenders, no lesser sentences were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']