Anderson v R [2008] NSWCCA 211

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert John Anderson

Applicant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the sentence was excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in approach to standard non-parole period
  3. 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