Barrett v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] NSWCCA 210

Barrett v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] NSWCCA 210

Neither the penalty imposed upon revocation of the s12 bond nor the revocation order itself are appealable to the District Court under s11 Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001, because such orders are not consequences of conviction but rather arise from breach of the bond; the magistrate did not exercise s43 discretion to correct the original sentencing error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (stated Case) / Determination of Stated Case by Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Time for filing Stated Case extended; both stated questions answered ('Does not arise') or 'No'. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['bond Revocation' 'suspended Sentences' 'appeals' 'sentencing Procedure']
['criminal Law'] ['bond Revocation' 'suspended Sentences' 'appeals' 'sentencing Procedure']

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 (stated Case) / Determination of Stated Case by Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an appeal lies to the District Court from an order revoking a s12 bond under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and consequent orders pursuant to s11 Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001' 'Whether a penalty imposed after reopening proceedings under s43 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 is appealable under s11 Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001']

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the penalty imposed upon revocation of the s12 bond nor the revocation order itself are appealable to the District Court under s11 Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001, because such orders are not consequences of conviction but rather arise from breach of the bond; the magistrate did not exercise s43 discretion to correct the original sentencing error.

Court Disposition

Time for filing Stated Case extended; both stated questions answered ('Does not arise') or 'No'. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Time for filing Stated Case extended to 30 November 2005' "Question 1 answered: 'Does not arise'" "Question 2 answered: 'Does not arise' (majority); 'No' (minority)"]