R v Pace [2008] NSWCCA 233

R v Pace [2008] NSWCCA 233

The sentencing judge did not err in exercising discretion by accepting the psychiatric evidence, finding a causal relationship between the respondent's schizophrenic disorder and the offending, and imposing sentences that emphasised rehabilitation and treatment while still imposing full-time custody. The asserted errors concerning deterrence, objective seriousness, differentiation between offences, sentence structure, and the non-parole period did not establish manifest inadequacy or appealable error, particularly given the restraint applicable to Crown appeals and the uncontested causal relevance of the mental illness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Asserted Inadequacy of Sentences / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['crown Sentence Appeal' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'psychiatric Illness and Sentencing' 'general Deterrence' 'special Deterrence' 'rehabilitation' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Sentence Appeal' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'psychiatric Illness and Sentencing' 'general Deterrence' 'special Deterrence' 'rehabilitation' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']

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 Asserted Inadequacy of Sentences / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by giving undue weight to the respondent's schizophrenic disorder and late diagnosis when sentencing for robbery and attempted robbery offences." 'Whether the sentences were manifestly inadequate or involved error in the treatment of general deterrence, special deterrence, objective seriousness, accumulation, and the non-parole period.' "Whether the respondent's psychiatric illness justified emphasis on rehabilitation and treatment and a departure from ordinary sentencing outcomes."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in exercising discretion by accepting the psychiatric evidence, finding a causal relationship between the respondent's schizophrenic disorder and the offending, and imposing sentences that emphasised rehabilitation and treatment while still imposing full-time custody. The asserted errors concerning deterrence, objective seriousness, differentiation between offences, sentence structure, and the non-parole period did not establish manifest inadequacy or appealable error, particularly given the restraint applicable to Crown appeals and the uncontested causal relevance of the mental illness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the asserted inadequacy of the sentences imposed on the respondent on 15 August 2008 was dismissed.']