Sampson v R [2010] NSWCCA 119

Sampson v R [2010] NSWCCA 119

The disparity between the applicant's sentence and Delaney's sentence was justified by the materially different Form 1 matters taken into account: Delaney had one related larceny matter, while the applicant had eight additional offences, including three serious aggravated break, enter and steal offences. The...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Break, Enter and Steal' 'knowingly Dealing in the Proceeds of Crime' 'parity With Co Offender' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'standard Non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Break, Enter and Steal' 'knowingly Dealing in the Proceeds of Crime' 'parity With Co Offender' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'standard Non Parole Period']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the disparity between the sentence imposed on the applicant and the sentence imposed on co-offender Bobby Delaney for the Campbelltown aggravated break, enter and steal offence gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.' 'Whether the extent to which the sentences were accumulated was excessive so that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether a lesser sentence was warranted in law.']

Ratio Decidendi

The disparity between the applicant's sentence and Delaney's sentence was justified by the materially different Form 1 matters taken into account: Delaney had one related larceny matter, while the applicant had eight additional offences, including three serious aggravated break, enter and steal offences. The identical sentences imposed on both offenders for the other common offence showed that the sentencing judge had the Form 1 matters firmly in mind. Although the overall sentence of 11 years with a non-parole period of 7.5 years was lengthy for a young offender, the serious and repeated nature of the offending meant the degree of accumulation remained within the sentencing discretion.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']