Regina v Shane John Ravet [2001] NSWCCA 535

Regina v Shane John Ravet [2001] NSWCCA 535

Even assuming error in the leniency of the sentences or in backdating them, the Court exercised its overriding discretion not to intervene because of the double jeopardy inherent in a Crown sentence appeal, the respondent's imminent parole release, his demonstrated progress in custody, and the immediate availability of a long-term residential drug rehabilitation program; the appeal was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal Under S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'break, Enter and Steal' 'break and Enter With Intent to Commit a Felony' 'offences Committed While on Parole' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'objective Seriousness' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'drug Addiction' 'rehabilitation' 'double Jeopardy' 'backdating Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'break, Enter and Steal' 'break and Enter With Intent to Commit a Felony' 'offences Committed While on Parole' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'objective Seriousness' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'drug Addiction' 'rehabilitation' 'double Jeopardy' 'backdating Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal Under S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for break, enter and steal and break and enter with intent to commit a felony were unjustifiably lenient or manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to objective seriousness, deterrence, and the aggravating feature that the offences were committed while the respondent was on parole.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by backdating the sentences to the date the respondent was taken into custody despite the revocation of parole.' "Whether the Court should exercise its residual discretion not to intervene because of double jeopardy, the imminent parole date, and the respondent's rehabilitation prospects."]

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming error in the leniency of the sentences or in backdating them, the Court exercised its overriding discretion not to intervene because of the double jeopardy inherent in a Crown sentence appeal, the respondent's imminent parole release, his demonstrated progress in custody, and the immediate availability of a long-term residential drug rehabilitation program; the appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']