White v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWSC 1629

White v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWSC 1629

The appeal was dismissed because, although s 5(1) required consideration of alternatives to imprisonment, the Magistrate did not act on any contrary basis and the bail and sentencing reasons showed that imprisonment was considered necessary. Section 5(2) did not apply to the indicative sentences of 5 months and 3 months because Mr White received an aggregate sentence of 16 months, and s 53A did not import the separate reasons requirement in s 5(2) for each indicative sentence. Leave was granted to challenge the sufficiency of reasons, but the Magistrate's sentencing reasons, read with the bail reasons, adequately explained the seriousness of the breaches, the differentiation between...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Part 5 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 From a Local Court Sentencing Decision / Supreme Court of New South Wales Decision on Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Extension of time granted, leave to raise ground 4 granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extended Supervision Order' 'terrorism (high Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (nsw)' 'aggregate Sentences' 'indicative Sentences' 'reasons for Sentence' 'questions of Law Alone' 'leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'appeals'] ['extended Supervision Order' 'terrorism (high Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (nsw)' 'aggregate Sentences' 'indicative Sentences' 'reasons for Sentence' 'questions of Law Alone' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Appeal Under Part 5 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 From a Local Court Sentencing Decision / Supreme Court of New South Wales Decision on Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Magistrate was required to consider all possible alternatives to imprisonment before imposing full-time imprisonment.' 'Whether s 5(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 required reasons for indicative sentences of 6 months or less where the aggregate sentence exceeded 6 months.' 'Whether the Magistrate failed to give sufficient reasons for the sentence imposed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, although s 5(1) required consideration of alternatives to imprisonment, the Magistrate did not act on any contrary basis and the bail and sentencing reasons showed that imprisonment was considered necessary. Section 5(2) did not apply to the indicative sentences of 5 months and 3 months because Mr White received an aggregate sentence of 16 months, and s 53A did not import the separate reasons requirement in s 5(2) for each indicative sentence. Leave was granted to challenge the sufficiency of reasons, but the Magistrate's sentencing reasons, read with the bail reasons, adequately explained the seriousness of the breaches, the differentiation between...

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted, leave to raise ground 4 granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The time for the filing of the Plaintiff's further amended summons be extended up to and including 13 July 2021." 'The Plaintiff be granted leave under s 53(1) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 to raise ground 4 of his further amended summons.' 'The Appeal be dismissed.']