Regina v Martin [2001] NSWCCA 442

Regina v Martin [2001] NSWCCA 442

Judge Dodd erred by imposing sentences identical with and wholly concurrent with the earlier sentences, thereby placing at nought the punishment for eight additional armed robbery convictions. Had the respondent been sentenced for all twenty armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery at one time, a markedly higher sentence should have been imposed. The seriousness and number of discrete armed robberies required additional punishment, implemented by partly concurrent and partly consecutive sentences consistently with totality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Under S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1912 Against Inadequacy of Sentences / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Allowed and Respondent Re Sentenced
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; respondent re-sentenced; sentence and non-parole period increased by 18 months.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'totality Principle' 'concurrent and Consecutive Sentences' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['armed Robbery' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'totality Principle' 'concurrent and Consecutive Sentences' 'non Parole Period']

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 Under S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1912 Against Inadequacy of Sentences / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Allowed and Respondent Re Sentenced

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Judge Dodd fell into appellable error by imposing sentences wholly concurrent with earlier sentences so that eight additional armed robbery convictions attracted no additional punishment.' 'Whether the totality principle justified no increase beyond the sentences already imposed for earlier armed robbery matters committed in the same period.' "Whether the sentencing judge should have imposed partly concurrent and partly consecutive sentences to reflect the respondent's overall criminality."]

Ratio Decidendi

Judge Dodd erred by imposing sentences identical with and wholly concurrent with the earlier sentences, thereby placing at nought the punishment for eight additional armed robbery convictions. Had the respondent been sentenced for all twenty armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery at one time, a markedly higher sentence should have been imposed. The seriousness and number of discrete armed robberies required additional punishment, implemented by partly concurrent and partly consecutive sentences consistently with totality.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; respondent re-sentenced; sentence and non-parole period increased by 18 months.

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal allowed.' 'The sentence imposed on 14 July 2000 was quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, the respondent was sentenced in respect of each offence to imprisonment for a period of eight years, with a non-parole period of six years, to be served partly concurrently and partly consecutively with the sentences...