Regina v King [2005] NSWCCA 296

Regina v King [2005] NSWCCA 296

The Court declined to intervene at this interim stage as no final sentence had been imposed; any error or appealable disposition can be remedied when the substantive sentence is delivered. The appeal was dismissed for want of present utility.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Interim Sentencing Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['crown Appeals' 'sentencing Procedure' 's.11 Order' 'adjournment Prior to Sentencing']
['criminal Law'] ['crown Appeals' 'sentencing Procedure' 's.11 Order' 'adjournment Prior to Sentencing']

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 Interim Sentencing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court erred in making a s.11 adjournment order under the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW)' 'Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal should intervene at the interim stage before sentence is finally imposed']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to intervene at this interim stage as no final sentence had been imposed; any error or appealable disposition can be remedied when the substantive sentence is delivered. The appeal was dismissed for want of present utility.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']