R v Goundar [2001] NSWCCA 198

R v Goundar [2001] NSWCCA 198

The original sentence was manifestly inadequate because insufficient weight was given to the objective seriousness of the offence and general deterrence. The sentence failed to reflect the respondent's role as a principal in the second degree to armed robbery by aiding and abetting, and did not maintain reasonable proportionality between objective gravity and subjective features. This justified appellate intervention and re-sentencing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed, sentence quashed. Respondent re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['aid and Abet Armed Robbery' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'objective and Subjective Circumstances in Sentencing' 'proportionality in Sentencing' 'general Deterrence' 'rehabilitation']
['criminal Law'] ['aid and Abet Armed Robbery' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'objective and Subjective Circumstances in Sentencing' 'proportionality in Sentencing' 'general Deterrence' 'rehabilitation']

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

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the objective seriousness of the offence' "Whether there was a lack of reasonable proportionality between the weight given to the objective gravity of the crime and the respondent's subjective features" 'Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate to the point of disclosing error']

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence was manifestly inadequate because insufficient weight was given to the objective seriousness of the offence and general deterrence. The sentence failed to reflect the respondent's role as a principal in the second degree to armed robbery by aiding and abetting, and did not maintain reasonable proportionality between objective gravity and subjective features. This justified appellate intervention and re-sentencing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, sentence quashed. Respondent re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed, sentence quashed.' 'Sentence of two and a half years imprisonment imposed with a non-parole period of 12 months.' 'Respondent to be released on parole at the end of the non-parole period, i.e., 7 August 2001.' 'Respondent to be taken into custody.']