Regina v Rudd [2010] NSWCCA 71
Although the sentencing judge erred by double-counting factors and in treating respondent's injuries as extra curial punishment (at least in part), the imposed sentence, when considering all circumstances and statistics, was not manifestly inadequate and no other sentence was warranted.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 April 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['malicious Wounding With Intent' 'departure From Standard Non Parole Period' 'plea of Guilty' 'double Counting in Sentencing' 'special Circumstances' 'periodic Detention']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to justify the degree of departure from the standard non-parole period for malicious wounding with intent' 'Whether there was double counting of mitigating factors in both finding special circumstances and ordering periodic detention' "Whether the trial judge erred in regarding respondent's injuries as extra curial punishment" 'Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate']
Ratio Decidendi
Although the sentencing judge erred by double-counting factors and in treating respondent's injuries as extra curial punishment (at least in part), the imposed sentence, when considering all circumstances and statistics, was not manifestly inadequate and no other sentence was warranted.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['The appeal is dismissed']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment