SS v R; JC v R [2009] NSWCCA 114

SS v R; JC v R [2009] NSWCCA 114

The sentencing judge erred in failing to adequately adjust SS’s non-parole period to reflect the special circumstances found, and erred in aggravation findings for JC. However, a lesser sentence for JC was not warranted, while SS’s sentences for charges 4 and 5 required adjustment to comply with the ratio between the term and the non-parole period after finding special circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave and Severity of Sentence
Outcome
SS: Leave to appeal granted, sentences for charges 4 and 5 quashed and re-sentenced; other sentences confirmed. JC: Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'juvenile Offenders' 'precedent Parity' 'principle of Totality' 'special Circumstances' 'duress' 'mitigating Circumstances']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'juvenile Offenders' 'precedent Parity' 'principle of Totality' 'special Circumstances' 'duress' 'mitigating 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

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave and Severity of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['whether the sentences for juvenile co-offenders SS and JC were unduly disproportionate giving rise to a justifiable sense of grievance (parity principle)' 'whether the sentencing judge erred in determining the effective non-parole period relative to the effective term of sentence after finding special circumstances' 'whether principles applicable to sentencing of children under s 6 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 were properly applied' 'whether aggravating circumstances such as multiple victims and planned criminal activity were correctly found' 'whether drug addiction occurring at a young age should have been considered a mitigating factor']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in failing to adequately adjust SS’s non-parole period to reflect the special circumstances found, and erred in aggravation findings for JC. However, a lesser sentence for JC was not warranted, while SS’s sentences for charges 4 and 5 required adjustment to comply with the ratio between the term and the non-parole period after finding special circumstances.

Court Disposition

SS: Leave to appeal granted, sentences for charges 4 and 5 quashed and re-sentenced; other sentences confirmed. JC: Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted (SS).' 'Quash the sentences imposed in the District Court on 27 July 2007 in respect of charges 4 and 5 being offences of robbery with wounding contrary to s 98(1) of the Crimes Act.' 'SS in respect of charge 4 convicted and sentenced to imprisonment: non-parole period of 3 years 8...