R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49

R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49

The sentences were manifestly inadequate because the offending involved repeated dishonest transfers over an extended period, a large effectively irretrievable loss, breach of trust, and insufficient weight to objective seriousness and general deterrence. Hulme J also considered the 20% utilitarian discount and the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment From Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Crown appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'periodic Detention' 'gambling Addiction and Mitigation' 'general Deterrence' 'residual Discretion on Crown Appeal']
['criminal Law and Procedure' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'periodic Detention' 'gambling Addiction and Mitigation' 'general Deterrence' 'residual Discretion on Crown Appeal']

Source-derived case record

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment From Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for dishonestly obtaining money by deception were manifestly inadequate.' "Whether the sentencing judge allowed an excessive discount for the respondent's pleas of guilty and Form 1 admissions." "Whether the sentencing judge placed inappropriate weight on the respondent's psychological condition and gambling addiction." 'Whether the Court should exercise its residual discretion to dismiss the Crown appeal despite manifest inadequacy.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences were manifestly inadequate because the offending involved repeated dishonest transfers over an extended period, a large effectively irretrievable loss, breach of trust, and insufficient weight to objective seriousness and general deterrence. Hulme J also considered the 20% utilitarian discount and the weight given to the respondent's psychological condition to involve error. However, the appeal was dismissed in the Court's residual discretion because post-sentence material showed significant illness and vulnerability, compliance with periodic detention, cessation of gambling, ongoing therapy and rehabilitation, and further hardship from the appeal process, making...

Court Disposition

Crown appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal dismissed.']