R v Lomax [2009] NSWCCA 53

R v Lomax [2009] NSWCCA 53

The Court held that the respondent should forfeit the 15 percent discount originally given for his promise of future assistance to authorities, as he failed to fulfil it, and there were no mitigating circumstances for this breach. The discounts for the plea of guilty (25 percent) and past assistance (7.5 percent) were maintained as appropriate, as no 'compression' of the discount was found. The sentence was recalculated accordingly.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; sentence increased.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'discount for Assistance to Authorities' 'crown Appeals' 'breach of Undertaking to Assist Prosecution']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'discount for Assistance to Authorities' 'crown Appeals' 'breach of Undertaking to Assist Prosecution']

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 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing discount for promised future assistance should be removed after the offender renounced his undertaking to assist authorities' 'Appropriate quantum of discount for past and future assistance to authorities and for the plea of guilty' 'Whether the original sentence was miscarried as viewed in hindsight under s 5DA Criminal Appeal Act 1912']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the respondent should forfeit the 15 percent discount originally given for his promise of future assistance to authorities, as he failed to fulfil it, and there were no mitigating circumstances for this breach. The discounts for the plea of guilty (25 percent) and past assistance (7.5 percent) were maintained as appropriate, as no 'compression' of the discount was found. The sentence was recalculated accordingly.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; sentence increased.

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal allowed.' 'Sentence imposed in the District Court quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, respondent is sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 4 years 1 month commencing on 26 March 2007 and expiring on 25 April 2011 with a balance term of 2 years 8 months commencing on 26 April 2011.'...