Burnett v R [2011] NSWCCA 276
The sentencing judge did not err in treating the applicant’s mental illness, in setting sentence commencement dates, or in declining to find special circumstances for parole; nor were the sentences manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offences and the applicant’s record. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 16 December 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Full Appeal Determination
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['sentence Appeal' 'break Enter and Steal' 'mental Illness and Sentencing' 'commencement of Sentence' 'special Circumstances for Parole' 'manifest Excess in Sentence']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Full Appeal Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether applicant's mental illness was properly considered by sentencing judge" 'Whether sentencing judge erred by not backdating commencement of sentences' 'Effect of applicant serving balance of sentence for breach of parole on new sentences' 'Whether there were special circumstances justifying non-standard parole period' 'Whether sentences were manifestly excessive']
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge did not err in treating the applicant’s mental illness, in setting sentence commencement dates, or in declining to find special circumstances for parole; nor were the sentences manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offences and the applicant’s record. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- []
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