Coles v R [2016] NSWCCA 32

Coles v R [2016] NSWCCA 32

There was no evidential basis to require the sentencing judge to treat the three-year delay between investigation and charging as a mitigating factor in this case, as the delay was attributable to the complexity of the investigation rather than prosecutorial inaction, and there was no detriment or adverse consequence to the applicant as a result; thus, failure to grant leniency on account of delay did not constitute error.

Parties
Applicant: Ronald Coles; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence – Leave Granted and Appeal Heard
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Sentence, Larceny as Bailee, Obtain Money by Deception, Fraudulently Omit to Account, Delay in Sentencing, Mitigation, Objective Seriousness, Special Circumstances
Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence Larceny as Bailee Obtain Money by Deception Fraudulently Omit to Account Delay in Sentencing Mitigation Objective Seriousness +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Coles

Applicant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence – Leave Granted and Appeal Heard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing judge erred by failing to account for three-year delay between investigation and charging as a mitigating factor
  2. 2 Whether delay warranted a more lenient aggregate sentence

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidential basis to require the sentencing judge to treat the three-year delay between investigation and charging as a mitigating factor in this case, as the delay was attributable to the complexity of the investigation rather than prosecutorial inaction, and there was no detriment or adverse consequence to the applicant as a result; thus, failure to grant leniency on account of delay did not constitute error.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is dismissed.