Small v R [2018] NSWCCA 290
The sentencing judge took account of the applicant's quasi-custody in sentencing but was not required to backdate the sentence or quantify a specific discount. There was no error in this approach as the allowance for quasi-custody is discretionary, and there is no authority requiring mathematical quantification or backdating. The appeal fails as no miscarriage of justice has occurred.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 December 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Application for Leave and Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal allowed. Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['sentence Appeal' 'quasi Custody Credit' 'supply Prohibited Drug' 'rehabilitation' 'pre Sentence Detention']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Application for Leave and Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether sentencing judge erred by failing to give proper credit for time spent in quasi-custody' 'Whether the sentence should have been backdated to reflect quasi-custody']
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge took account of the applicant's quasi-custody in sentencing but was not required to backdate the sentence or quantify a specific discount. There was no error in this approach as the allowance for quasi-custody is discretionary, and there is no authority requiring mathematical quantification or backdating. The appeal fails as no miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal allowed. Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal allowed.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment