Regina v Mannering [2001] NSWCCA 275

Regina v Mannering [2001] NSWCCA 275

Because the applicant was charged with robbery under s 94 of the Crimes Act 1900 and not robbery with an offensive weapon under s 97, the sentencing judge erred by taking into account the use of capsicum spray as an offensive weapon in assessing sentence. That error required the sentence to be quashed and the applicant to be re-sentenced, with a discount for his early guilty plea and genuine contrition and with special circumstances justifying departure from statutory proportions between the head sentence and non-parole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, sentence quashed, and the applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['robbery' 'de Simoni Error' 'use of Offensive Weapon in Sentencing' 'guilty Plea' 'contrition' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery' 'de Simoni Error' 'use of Offensive Weapon in Sentencing' 'guilty Plea' 'contrition' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by taking into account the use of capsicum spray as an offensive weapon when sentencing for robbery under s 94 of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'Whether the applicant should be re-sentenced and what sentence should be imposed, including the allowance for the early guilty plea and contrition.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant was charged with robbery under s 94 of the Crimes Act 1900 and not robbery with an offensive weapon under s 97, the sentencing judge erred by taking into account the use of capsicum spray as an offensive weapon in assessing sentence. That error required the sentence to be quashed and the applicant to be re-sentenced, with a discount for his early guilty plea and genuine contrition and with special circumstances justifying departure from statutory proportions between the head sentence and non-parole period.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, sentence quashed, and the applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted.' 'The appeal be allowed; the sentence quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, the applicant be sentenced to imprisonment for three and a half years to commence on 13 April 2000 with a non-parole period of two years and three months.']