Ryan John Mackenzie v R [2011] NSWCCA 21

Ryan John Mackenzie v R [2011] NSWCCA 21

The sentences imposed for CANs 1 and 3 were manifestly excessive and beyond the range available for the criminality found, and the sentencing judge failed to properly sentence for each individual offence before considering questions of concurrency and accumulation. The correct approach required fixing sentences for each offence and then considering their structure, resulting in resentencing to achieve proper recognition of the criminality and victims involved.

Parties
Appellant: Ryan John Mackenzie; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave and Re Sentencing
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Leave to appeal granted. Sentences for CANs 1 and 3 quashed. Appellant resentenced on CANs 1, 3 and sentences on CANs 2 and 4 varied.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Appeal, Manifest Excess, Accumulation and Concurrency of Sentences, Domestic Violence
Criminal Law Sentencing Appeal Manifest Excess Accumulation and Concurrency of Sentences Domestic Violence

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryan John Mackenzie

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave and Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed for assault occasioning bodily harm (CAN 1) and reckless wounding (CAN 3) were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the facts in relation to CAN 1
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing judge erred in the way concurrency and accumulation of sentences was considered

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed for CANs 1 and 3 were manifestly excessive and beyond the range available for the criminality found, and the sentencing judge failed to properly sentence for each individual offence before considering questions of concurrency and accumulation. The correct approach required fixing sentences for each offence and then considering their structure, resulting in resentencing to achieve proper recognition of the criminality and victims involved.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Leave to appeal granted. Sentences for CANs 1 and 3 quashed. Appellant resentenced on CANs 1, 3 and sentences on CANs 2 and 4 varied.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal.
  • Appeal allowed.