R v Dileski [2002] NSWCCA 345

R v Dileski [2002] NSWCCA 345

The sentencing judge erred by treating the applicant's assistance in obtaining the deceased's money as part of the offence of being an accessory after the fact to murder, because that conduct did not help the principal offender evade justice. The Court therefore re-sentenced the applicant, adopting a four-year starting point and reducing it by fifty percent for the plea of guilty, remorse and assistance to the authorities, producing a sentence of two years imprisonment with a one-year non-parole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / NSW Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['accessory After the Fact to Murder' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'sentencing Error' 'assistance to Authorities' 'plea of Guilty' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['accessory After the Fact to Murder' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'sentencing Error' 'assistance to Authorities' 'plea of Guilty' 'non Parole Period']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / NSW Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by treating the applicant's assistance in cashing cheques and enabling the principal offender to obtain money as part of the criminality of being an accessory after the fact to murder." "Whether the Court should re-sentence the applicant in light of the sentencing error and the applicant's subsequent assistance to the Crown in the trial of the principal offender." 'Whether the resulting sentence after discount for plea, remorse and assistance would be unreasonably disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by treating the applicant's assistance in obtaining the deceased's money as part of the offence of being an accessory after the fact to murder, because that conduct did not help the principal offender evade justice. The Court therefore re-sentenced the applicant, adopting a four-year starting point and reducing it by fifty percent for the plea of guilty, remorse and assistance to the authorities, producing a sentence of two years imprisonment with a one-year non-parole period.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Sentence passed in the District Court quashed.' 'Applicant sentenced to imprisonment for two years, to date from 13th September 2001, with a non-parole period of one year.' 'Applicant to be released at the expiration of the non-parole period and to be subject to the supervision and guidance of the Probation and...