REGINA v PULLIENE [2009] NSWCCA 47

REGINA v PULLIENE [2009] NSWCCA 47

No error was shown in the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion under s11. The respondent was a young woman with a troubled background and intellectual disability who had shown some signs of rehabilitation, but whose prospects were uncertain. It was open and appropriate to test her capacity for reform over a reasonably lengthy period before sentence was determined, and the delay was in the interests of justice because, in the unusual circumstances, a full time custodial sentence was not inevitable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Order Under S11(1) Adjourning Sentence Proceedings and Releasing the Respondent on Conditional Bail
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal' 'armed Robbery' 'plea of Guilty' 'adjournment of Sentence Proceedings' 'conditional Bail' 'rehabilitation' 'intellectual Disability' 'guideline Judgment']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['crown Appeal' 'armed Robbery' 'plea of Guilty' 'adjournment of Sentence Proceedings' 'conditional Bail' 'rehabilitation' 'intellectual Disability' 'guideline Judgment']

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 to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Order Under S11(1) Adjourning Sentence Proceedings and Releasing the Respondent on Conditional Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court judge erred in making an order under s11(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act adjourning sentence proceedings and releasing the respondent on conditional bail.' "Whether the adjournment was justified to assess the respondent's prospects of rehabilitation." 'Whether a full time custodial sentence for the armed robbery was inevitable.']

Ratio Decidendi

No error was shown in the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion under s11. The respondent was a young woman with a troubled background and intellectual disability who had shown some signs of rehabilitation, but whose prospects were uncertain. It was open and appropriate to test her capacity for reform over a reasonably lengthy period before sentence was determined, and the delay was in the interests of justice because, in the unusual circumstances, a full time custodial sentence was not inevitable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal dismissed']