Kanengele-Yondjo v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 354

Kanengele-Yondjo v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 354

The offences committed by the applicant fell within the worst case category under Crimes Act s 35(1)(b); the sentencing judge did not err in his approach to discount for the plea of guilty, consideration of subjective circumstances, application of totality, fixing of non-parole period, or in the proportionality of the sentences. No error justifying intervention was established; leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Against Sentence Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['malicious Infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm' 'infecting With HIV Virus' 'sentencing' 'worst Case Category' 'discount for Plea of Guilty' 'totality Principle' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence']
['criminal Law'] ['malicious Infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm' 'infecting With HIV Virus' 'sentencing' 'worst Case Category' 'discount for Plea of Guilty' 'totality Principle' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence']

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 / Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Against Sentence Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the offences fell within the worst case category under Crimes Act s 35(1)(b)' 'Whether adequate discount was given for plea of guilty' "Whether sufficient weight was given to applicant's subjective circumstances" 'Whether reasons were given for not fixing a non-parole period for count 1' 'Whether principles of totality were taken into account' 'Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences committed by the applicant fell within the worst case category under Crimes Act s 35(1)(b); the sentencing judge did not err in his approach to discount for the plea of guilty, consideration of subjective circumstances, application of totality, fixing of non-parole period, or in the proportionality of the sentences. No error justifying intervention was established; leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted' 'Appeal dismissed' 'Order previously made suppressing publication of the names of the victims is continued']