Hoskins v R [2015] NSWCCA 245

Hoskins v R [2015] NSWCCA 245

The sentencing judge did not err in assessing the offences as falling within the broad middle range of objective seriousness and did not apply a wrong principle in relation to the Form 1 despite infelicitous language. However, when the 40% discount was removed, the notional starting points for the indicative sentences and the aggregate sentence were too high in light of the objective seriousness of the offences. The aggregate sentence was therefore manifestly excessive, requiring the appeal to be allowed and the applicant to be resentenced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; aggregate sentence quashed; applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'break, Enter and Steal Offences' 'form 1 Offences' 'aggregate Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'special Circumstances' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'self Inculpation Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'break, Enter and Steal Offences' 'form 1 Offences' 'aggregate Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'special Circumstances' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'self Inculpation Discount']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in concluding that the objective seriousness of both substantive offences fell within the middle range.' 'Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the principles applicable to taking Form 1 offences into account when sentencing for the substantive offence.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in assessing the offences as falling within the broad middle range of objective seriousness and did not apply a wrong principle in relation to the Form 1 despite infelicitous language. However, when the 40% discount was removed, the notional starting points for the indicative sentences and the aggregate sentence were too high in light of the objective seriousness of the offences. The aggregate sentence was therefore manifestly excessive, requiring the appeal to be allowed and the applicant to be resentenced.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; aggregate sentence quashed; applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'The aggregate sentence of 3 April 2014 is quashed.' 'The applicant is sentenced to an aggregate head sentence of imprisonment for four years to commence on 26 May 2013 and expire on 25 May 2017 with a non-parole period of 2 years to date from 26 May 2013 and expire on...