MATHESON, Scott Paul v. REGINA [2007] NSWCCA 285

MATHESON, Scott Paul v. REGINA [2007] NSWCCA 285

Although the sentencing judge erred by not explicitly recording reasons for declining to set a non-parole period for the fixed larceny sentence, appellate intervention was not warranted because the judge was addressing the total effect of the sentences and s.45(4) provides that non-compliance does not invalidate the sentence. Greater concurrency was open but not required because the offences were distinct, separated by seven weeks, and involved separate victims. The larceny sentence was not manifestly excessive. The applicant's intention to use the stolen tablets to manufacture illegal drugs was relevant to the criminality of the offence and to s.21A factors, and did not amount to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'cumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'aggravating Factors' 'relevance of Intention With Which Offence Committed']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'cumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'aggravating Factors' 'relevance of Intention With Which Offence Committed']

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 Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court erred by failing to give reasons for imposing a fixed sentence and not setting a non-parole period for the larceny from the person offence.' 'Whether the District Court erred by directing that 18 months of the sentence for larceny from the person be cumulative upon the sentence for armed robbery.' 'Whether the sentence imposed for larceny from the person was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the District Court erroneously took into account as an aggravating matter that the larceny offence was planned as part of a larger criminal enterprise to manufacture amphetamine.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge erred by not explicitly recording reasons for declining to set a non-parole period for the fixed larceny sentence, appellate intervention was not warranted because the judge was addressing the total effect of the sentences and s.45(4) provides that non-compliance does not invalidate the sentence. Greater concurrency was open but not required because the offences were distinct, separated by seven weeks, and involved separate victims. The larceny sentence was not manifestly excessive. The applicant's intention to use the stolen tablets to manufacture illegal drugs was relevant to the criminality of the offence and to s.21A factors, and did not amount to...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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