Primmer v R [2023] NSWCCA 301
The sentence was erroneously post-dated in contravention of s 47(5) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), given the applicant was serving the balance of his parole, and the delay in sentencing and the reasons for the revocation of parole warranted resentencing with the sentence commencing at the date of the guilty plea.
- Parties
- Applicant: Scott Primmer; Respondent: Rex
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 December 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence; Resentencing
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; sentence quashed and resentenced
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Against Sentence, Commencement Date of Sentence, Delay in Sentencing, Revocation of Parole, Manifest Excess
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Scott Primmer
Applicant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence; Resentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in determining the commencement date of the sentence by failing to consider and apply s 47(5) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- 2 Whether delay in sentencing proceedings was properly considered and caused disadvantage
- 3 Whether revocation of parole due solely to the offence required backdating of the sentence
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence was erroneously post-dated in contravention of s 47(5) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), given the applicant was serving the balance of his parole, and the delay in sentencing and the reasons for the revocation of parole warranted resentencing with the sentence commencing at the date of the guilty plea.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed and resentenced
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted.
- Appeal allowed.
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