REGINA V. MAIN & TURNER [2003] NSWCCA 268

REGINA V. MAIN & TURNER [2003] NSWCCA 268

The Court held that, despite the serious and appalling intoxicated violence involved, the sentencing judge had considered the objective seriousness, deterrence, the respondents' youth and records, and the unchallenged rehabilitation material. Given the wide sentencing discretion, the unusual and powerful rehabilitation prospects, and the accepted significance of suspended sentences, the 18 month suspended sentences were not manifestly inadequate and did not disclose appellable error warranting intervention under s.5D.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'suspended Sentence' 'malicious Wounding in Company' 'young Offenders' 'rehabilitation' 'general and Personal Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'suspended Sentence' 'malicious Wounding in Company' 'young Offenders' 'rehabilitation' 'general and Personal Deterrence']

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 Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the 18 month suspended sentences imposed on each respondent for malicious wounding in company, with a Form 1 offence of malicious damage to a motor vehicle taken into account, were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the objective seriousness of the violent offending and allowed subjective considerations and rehabilitation prospects to overwhelm deterrence and community protection.' 'Whether appellate intervention under s.5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 was warranted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, despite the serious and appalling intoxicated violence involved, the sentencing judge had considered the objective seriousness, deterrence, the respondents' youth and records, and the unchallenged rehabilitation material. Given the wide sentencing discretion, the unusual and powerful rehabilitation prospects, and the accepted significance of suspended sentences, the 18 month suspended sentences were not manifestly inadequate and did not disclose appellable error warranting intervention under s.5D.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeals are dismissed.']