WINDLE v R [2011] NSWCCA 277

WINDLE v R [2011] NSWCCA 277

The sentencing judge made no error in finding no acceptable evidence of remorse or contrition, because the applicant's statements were limited, the plea could be viewed as recognition of a strong Crown case, there was no reparation, and the judge did not ultimately rely on the refusal to name co-offenders. The sentence was not manifestly excessive because the judge properly considered the seriousness of the planned robbery, the significant amount stolen, the breach of trust, commission while on a s9 bond, the applicant's prior record, and his modest subjective case; sentencing statistics did not show the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal allowed; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery' 'plea of Guilty' 'remorse and Contrition' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing Statistics' 'good Behaviour Bond' 'conditional Liberty']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery' 'plea of Guilty' 'remorse and Contrition' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing Statistics' 'good Behaviour Bond' 'conditional Liberty']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in concluding that there was no acceptable evidence of remorse or contrition.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider remorse demonstrated by the plea of guilty.' 'Whether refusal to identify co-offenders was wrongly treated as relevant to remorse and contrition.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge made no error in finding no acceptable evidence of remorse or contrition, because the applicant's statements were limited, the plea could be viewed as recognition of a strong Crown case, there was no reparation, and the judge did not ultimately rely on the refusal to name co-offenders. The sentence was not manifestly excessive because the judge properly considered the seriousness of the planned robbery, the significant amount stolen, the breach of trust, commission while on a s9 bond, the applicant's prior record, and his modest subjective case; sentencing statistics did not show the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal allowed; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal allowed.' 'Appeal dismissed.']