R v BELL [2003] NSWCCA 305

R v BELL [2003] NSWCCA 305

No sentencing error was shown. The case was factually distinguishable from R v Lyndon because the applicant had not been in continuous custody since 11 April 2002, having been released on 10 October 2002 and returned to custody on 30 October 2002 on other matters. The sentencing judge took account of appropriate objective and subjective matters, including the seriousness of the assaults and the third count threat, and the sentences were within range. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['assaulting a Police Officer in the Execution of Duty' 'severity Appeal' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['assaulting a Police Officer in the Execution of Duty' 'severity Appeal' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in considering special circumstances by failing to have regard to the effect of accumulation upon existing sentences.' 'Whether the accumulation of sentences should have resulted in a reduction of the non-parole period for the third count.' "Whether insufficient weight was given to the applicant's protective custody circumstances and prospects of rehabilitation."]

Ratio Decidendi

No sentencing error was shown. The case was factually distinguishable from R v Lyndon because the applicant had not been in continuous custody since 11 April 2002, having been released on 10 October 2002 and returned to custody on 30 October 2002 on other matters. The sentencing judge took account of appropriate objective and subjective matters, including the seriousness of the assaults and the third count threat, and the sentences were within range. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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