Regina v Wicks [2005] NSWCCA 213

Regina v Wicks [2005] NSWCCA 213

The appeal was dismissed because no sentencing error warranting appellate intervention was shown. It was open to the sentencing judge to regard the offence, even before allowance for mental illness, as no worse than the typical case in R v Henry, to accept the uncontested evidence that the respondent suffered from chronic schizophrenia, and to find that her culpability and suitability as a vehicle for general deterrence were reduced and that custody would weigh more heavily on her. The finding that she was unlikely to re-offend was open on the evidence. The total sentence of three years was not erroneous, and although the non-parole period was low it was not outside the permissible range;...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['robbery Whilst Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'non Parole Period' 'mental Illness' 'chronic Schizophrenia' 'special Circumstances' 'parole']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery Whilst Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'non Parole Period' 'mental Illness' 'chronic Schizophrenia' 'special Circumstances' 'parole']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the total sentence of three years was manifestly inadequate for robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon.' 'Whether the non-parole period of eight months and twenty eight days was manifestly inadequate.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred by giving undue weight to the respondent's mental illness and subjective circumstances." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the level of dangerousness the respondent presented to the community.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because no sentencing error warranting appellate intervention was shown. It was open to the sentencing judge to regard the offence, even before allowance for mental illness, as no worse than the typical case in R v Henry, to accept the uncontested evidence that the respondent suffered from chronic schizophrenia, and to find that her culpability and suitability as a vehicle for general deterrence were reduced and that custody would weigh more heavily on her. The finding that she was unlikely to re-offend was open on the evidence. The total sentence of three years was not erroneous, and although the non-parole period was low it was not outside the permissible range;...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']