R v Gorman [2002] NSWCCA 516

R v Gorman [2002] NSWCCA 516

The sentencing judge erred by treating multiple offences as 'one episode of criminality' and imposing wholly concurrent sentences, contrary to the method required by Pearce v The Queen. Appropriate sentences for each offence must be set, and questions of concurrency and cumulation addressed with the totality principle. The sentences, viewed individually and collectively, were manifestly inadequate. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was re-sentenced with partly cumulative sentences and adjusted non-parole periods.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal; Sentencing; Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent re-sentenced
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'crown Appeal' 'multiple Offences' 'totality Principle' 'concurrent and Cumulative Sentences']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'crown Appeal' 'multiple Offences' 'totality Principle' 'concurrent and Cumulative Sentences']

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; Sentencing; Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in law in applying the totality principle and the approach mandated by Pearce v The Queen' 'Whether sentences for multiple offences should have been made concurrent or cumulative' 'Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate for the objective seriousness of the offences' 'Whether the 25% discount for pleas of guilty was appropriate']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by treating multiple offences as 'one episode of criminality' and imposing wholly concurrent sentences, contrary to the method required by Pearce v The Queen. Appropriate sentences for each offence must be set, and questions of concurrency and cumulation addressed with the totality principle. The sentences, viewed individually and collectively, were manifestly inadequate. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was re-sentenced with partly cumulative sentences and adjusted non-parole periods.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent re-sentenced

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Sentence quashed.' 'Count 1: Term of imprisonment of 5 years, commencing 10 August 2001, with a non-parole period of two years and six months expiring on 9 February 2004.' 'Count 2: Term of imprisonment of 5 years, commencing 10 August 2001, with a non-parole period of two years and six months...