REGINA v BAUGH [1999] NSWCCA 131

REGINA v BAUGH [1999] NSWCCA 131

Looking at the whole of the objective and subjective circumstances, especially the respondent seeking out the altercation, administering the blow, and causing very substantial injury in the form of skull fracture and brain damage from the fall, the effective penalty of one year imprisonment plus only the risk of...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Crown Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent sentenced to two years to be served by way of Periodic Detention commencing on Friday, 4 June 1999.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'remorse' 'periodic Detention' 'parity in Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'remorse' 'periodic Detention' 'parity in Sentencing']

Source-derived case record

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

Criminal Sentencing Crown Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the objective seriousness of the offence.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave undue weight to the respondent's expression of regret or remorse." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating an overall sentence of two years, divided into a minimum term of one year and an additional term of one year, as the starting point.']

Ratio Decidendi

Looking at the whole of the objective and subjective circumstances, especially the respondent seeking out the altercation, administering the blow, and causing very substantial injury in the form of skull fracture and brain damage from the fall, the effective penalty of one year imprisonment plus only the risk of further sentencing was manifestly inadequate, notwithstanding the restraints applicable to Crown appeals and the fact that the respondent had been at liberty for six months.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent sentenced to two years to be served by way of Periodic Detention commencing on Friday, 4 June 1999.

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal.' 'Quash the sentence.' 'Sentence the respondent to a term of two years to be served by way of Periodic Detention, commencing on Friday, 4 June 1999.']