Regina v Maher [2002] NSWCCA 100

Regina v Maher [2002] NSWCCA 100

The four year head sentence for the break, enter and steal offence, though severe, was within the sentencing discretion given the professional and commercially motivated nature of the offence. However, the non-parole period failed to recognise special circumstances arising from the applicant's youth and background and from the accumulation of the sentence, and should be reduced to preserve a meaningful parole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; head sentence confirmed; non-parole period quashed and reduced.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'non Parole Period' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'non Parole Period' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the four year sentence for break, enter and steal was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate effect to the totality principle when accumulating the sentence on an existing sentence.' "Whether special circumstances justified a shorter non-parole period in light of the applicant's youth, background and the accumulation of sentences."]

Ratio Decidendi

The four year head sentence for the break, enter and steal offence, though severe, was within the sentencing discretion given the professional and commercially motivated nature of the offence. However, the non-parole period failed to recognise special circumstances arising from the applicant's youth and background and from the accumulation of the sentence, and should be reduced to preserve a meaningful parole period.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; head sentence confirmed; non-parole period quashed and reduced.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal should be granted.' 'The appeal should be allowed.' 'The sentence of four years commencing on 24 April 2001 should be confirmed but the non parole period of three years should be quashed and a non parole of two years and three months should be fixed. In that event the applicant will become eligible...