REGINA v. LOLESI [2002] NSWCCA 189

REGINA v. LOLESI [2002] NSWCCA 189

Court found that, having regard to the applicant's prospects for rehabilitation, youth, first gaol sentence, contrition, early plea of guilty, and willingness to enter a custodial rehabilitation centre, special circumstances existed justifying intervention. A revised sentence was imposed to address these factors and the disparity with the co-offender's sentence under the children's regime.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: Shontel Lolesi
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed; sentence below quashed; new sentences imposed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Parity, Contrition, Remorse, Drug Rehabilitation, Role of Offender, Children (criminal Proceedings) Act Regime
Criminal Law Sentencing Parity Contrition Remorse Drug Rehabilitation Role of Offender Children (criminal Proceedings) Act Regime

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Shontel Lolesi

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the trial judge err in failing to give sufficient weight to contrition and remorse?
  2. 2 Did the trial judge fail to give due weight to the applicant's lesser role, limited criminal history, and prospects of rehabilitation?
  3. 3 Did the sentencing lack appropriate parity with the sentence imposed on the co-offender in the Children's Court, given different regimes?

Ratio Decidendi

Court found that, having regard to the applicant's prospects for rehabilitation, youth, first gaol sentence, contrition, early plea of guilty, and willingness to enter a custodial rehabilitation centre, special circumstances existed justifying intervention. A revised sentence was imposed to address these factors and the disparity with the co-offender's sentence under the children's regime.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; sentence below quashed; new sentences imposed

Orders

  • Fixed term of 18 months imprisonment on counts one and three, commencing 3 April 2001 and expiring 2 October 2002.
  • On count four, two years, nine months imprisonment commencing 3 April 2001 and expiring 2 January 2004, wholly concurrent with counts one and three.