R v Dagg (a pseudonym) [2019] NSWCCA 132

R v Dagg (a pseudonym) [2019] NSWCCA 132

Although the respondent's undertaking extended to giving evidence at the co-offender's sentencing and he failed to provide assistance, the appeal was dismissed in the exercise of discretion because the undertaking had already provided benefit to the State by contributing to the co-offender's guilty plea, and the respondent had spent 61 days in immigration detention after the date on which he was entitled to release on parole, leaving only a small practical additional period when compared with the 78-day non-parole period effect of the discount.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal Pursuant to S 5 DA of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) From Sentence in the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'discount for Future Assistance' 'failure to Comply With Undertaking to Give Evidence' 'exercise of Appellate Discretion' 'immigration Detention After Expiry of Non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals' 'migration Detention'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'discount for Future Assistance' 'failure to Comply With Undertaking to Give Evidence' 'exercise of Appellate Discretion' 'immigration Detention After Expiry of Non Parole Period']

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 Sentence / Appeal Pursuant to S 5 DA of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) From Sentence in the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent failed to comply with an undertaking to provide future assistance after receiving a sentencing discount.' 'Whether the undertaking extended to giving evidence at the sentencing hearing of the co-offender.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to vary the sentence under s 5DA of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).' "What effect should be given to the respondent's immigration detention after the expiry of his non-parole period."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondent's undertaking extended to giving evidence at the co-offender's sentencing and he failed to provide assistance, the appeal was dismissed in the exercise of discretion because the undertaking had already provided benefit to the State by contributing to the co-offender's guilty plea, and the respondent had spent 61 days in immigration detention after the date on which he was entitled to release on parole, leaving only a small practical additional period when compared with the 78-day non-parole period effect of the discount.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ["The Crown's appeal was dismissed."]