Regina v Baker [2002] NSWCCA 184

Regina v Baker [2002] NSWCCA 184

The appeal was dismissed because the lower court did not err in finding that there were no 'special reasons' justifying a determination of a minimum and additional term under s 13A(4) of the Sentencing Act 1989, the proper test was applied, and the requirement of 'special reasons' and related legislation was not constitutionally invalid nor did it usurp judicial power.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Allan Baker
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Determine Minimum and Additional Term to Replace Life Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Life Sentences, Minimum and Additional Terms Under Sentencing Act 1989 S 13 A(4), Special Reasons, Constitutional Validity of Sentencing Amendments
Criminal Law Life Sentences Minimum and Additional Terms Under Sentencing Act 1989 S 13 A(4) Special Reasons Constitutional Validity of Sentencing Amendments

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Allan Baker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Determine Minimum and Additional Term to Replace Life Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judge erred in deciding eligibility to make an application under s 13A(4) of the Sentencing Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether wrong test was applied for establishing 'special reasons' pursuant to s 13A(3A)
  3. 3 Meaning of 'special reasons' in the legislation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the lower court did not err in finding that there were no 'special reasons' justifying a determination of a minimum and additional term under s 13A(4) of the Sentencing Act 1989, the proper test was applied, and the requirement of 'special reasons' and related legislation was not constitutionally invalid nor did it usurp judicial power.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.