Anderson v R [2008] NSWCCA 211
Although the sentencing judge erred in his approach to the application of the standard non-parole period, the sentence imposed was appropriate having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s prior record, and the need for deterrence. The error did not result in a miscarriage of the sentencing discretion such that a lesser sentence was required.
- Parties
- Applicant: Robert John Anderson; Respondent: The Crown
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 September 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Malicious Wounding With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Sentencing, Standard Non Parole Period, Aboriginality of the Offender, Appeal From Sentence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert John Anderson
Applicant
The Crown
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence was excessive
- 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in approach to standard non-parole period
- 3 Whether error as to standard non-parole period affected sentence
Ratio Decidendi
Although the sentencing judge erred in his approach to the application of the standard non-parole period, the sentence imposed was appropriate having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s prior record, and the need for deterrence. The error did not result in a miscarriage of the sentencing discretion such that a lesser sentence was required.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Orders
- Grant leave to appeal
- Dismiss the appeal
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