R v Craig John DREW [2007] NSWCCA 331

R v Craig John DREW [2007] NSWCCA 331

Although heavier sentences and greater accumulation might have been justified, the sentences imposed separately and together were not manifestly inadequate. The sentencing judges gave detailed reasons, considered objective seriousness, victim impact, subjective circumstances, drug addiction, rehabilitation, concurrency, accumulation and totality, and no miscarriage of sentencing discretion was shown. Appellate intervention would be unwarranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Inadequacy of Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery With Offensive Weapon' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'crown Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery With Offensive Weapon' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'crown Appeal']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Inadequacy of Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for multiple counts of robbery with an offensive weapon and robbery with an offensive weapon with wounding were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the degree of concurrency and accumulation adequately reflected the total criminality of the five offences.' 'Whether similar offences committed over a short period should attract wholly or substantially concurrent sentences.' 'Whether the sentencing discretion of either sentencing judge miscarried.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although heavier sentences and greater accumulation might have been justified, the sentences imposed separately and together were not manifestly inadequate. The sentencing judges gave detailed reasons, considered objective seriousness, victim impact, subjective circumstances, drug addiction, rehabilitation, concurrency, accumulation and totality, and no miscarriage of sentencing discretion was shown. Appellate intervention would be unwarranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']