Sandra Elsie WIGGINS v R [2008] NSWCCA 19
The sentences were not outside the permissible range of sentencing discretion, having regard to the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's personal history, her role in planning and carrying out the offences, and the distinctions between her case and that of her co-offender. The sentencing judge's approach was consistent with authority and properly balanced the objective and subjective circumstances.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 February 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Leave granted to appeal. Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['manifest Excess' 'sentence Appeal' 'sentencing Discretion' 'disparity in Sentencing']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive' 'Whether the objective and/or subjective circumstances justified a sentence less than the range in the guideline judgment' 'Whether the sentence was outside the range of sentencing discretion' 'Whether there was disparity in the sentences imposed on co-offenders']
Ratio Decidendi
The sentences were not outside the permissible range of sentencing discretion, having regard to the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's personal history, her role in planning and carrying out the offences, and the distinctions between her case and that of her co-offender. The sentencing judge's approach was consistent with authority and properly balanced the objective and subjective circumstances.
Court Disposition
Leave granted to appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- ['Leave granted to appeal' 'Appeal dismissed']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment