REGINA v Glen WILSON [2001] NSWCCA 399

REGINA v Glen WILSON [2001] NSWCCA 399

Although the sentencing judge erred in the application and criticism of sentencing guideline judgments (especially R v Henry) and in failing to reflect adequately the objective seriousness of the offences in the sentence and non-parole period, the Court exercised its discretion not to intervene in the Crown appeal due to the respondent's convincing progress in rehabilitation, the length and restrictiveness of that rehabilitation, and the principle of double jeopardy in Crown appeals.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Glen Leslie Wilson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Crown Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Appeal Against Sentence, Armed Robbery, Attempted Stealing, Drug Addiction and Sentencing, Guideline Judgments
Criminal Law Sentencing Appeal Against Sentence Armed Robbery Attempted Stealing Drug Addiction and Sentencing Guideline Judgments

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Glen Leslie Wilson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Crown Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate for offences of assault with intent to rob whilst armed with an offensive weapon and attempted stealing from the person; whether the sentencing judge erred in applying or departing from guideline judgments, particularly R v Henry, for armed robbery offences; whether rehabilitation and subjective features justified an exceptional approach to sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge erred in the application and criticism of sentencing guideline judgments (especially R v Henry) and in failing to reflect adequately the objective seriousness of the offences in the sentence and non-parole period, the Court exercised its discretion not to intervene in the Crown appeal due to the respondent's convincing progress in rehabilitation, the length and restrictiveness of that rehabilitation, and the principle of double jeopardy in Crown appeals.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Crown appeal is dismissed.
  • The original sentences and orders of the District Court stand.