Regina v Baker* [2017] NSWCCA 233

Regina v Baker* [2017] NSWCCA 233

The sentence imposed in the District Court was manifestly inadequate for two mid-range offences of soliciting to murder involving child victims and an attempt to remove witnesses in pending criminal proceedings. Comparable authority, especially Lindstrom v R [2008] NSWSC 198, showed that the starting point of nine years for each offence and the aggregate sentence were too lenient. The residual discretion not to intervene was not exercised. By majority, concurrence was inappropriate because there were two separate victims, different steps were taken in relation to each victim, and the second offence represented a significant escalation of the respondent's criminality; the District Court...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From Sentence Imposed in Wollongong District Court
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; sentence imposed in the District Court quashed; respondent resentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 10 months and a balance of term of 3 years and 10 months.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'soliciting to Murder' 'child Victims' 'non Publication and Suppression Orders' 'residual Discretion on Crown Appeals']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'soliciting to Murder' 'child Victims' 'non Publication and Suppression Orders' 'residual Discretion on Crown Appeals']

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 From Sentence Imposed in Wollongong District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentence imposed for two counts of soliciting a person to commit murder contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether any residual discretion not to intervene should be exercised if manifest inadequacy was established.' 'Whether the substituted sentences should be concurrent or involve accumulation to reflect separate offending against two child victims.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed in the District Court was manifestly inadequate for two mid-range offences of soliciting to murder involving child victims and an attempt to remove witnesses in pending criminal proceedings. Comparable authority, especially Lindstrom v R [2008] NSWSC 198, showed that the starting point of nine years for each offence and the aggregate sentence were too lenient. The residual discretion not to intervene was not exercised. By majority, concurrence was inappropriate because there were two separate victims, different steps were taken in relation to each victim, and the second offence represented a significant escalation of the respondent's criminality; the District Court...

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; sentence imposed in the District Court quashed; respondent resentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 10 months and a balance of term of 3 years and 10 months.

Orders

  • ['The Crown appeal be allowed.' 'The sentence imposed in the District Court be quashed and in substitution therefor the respondent be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 10 months commencing on 24 April 2015 and expiring on 23 February 2021 and a balance of term of 3 years and...