Stoeski v Regina [2014] NSWCCA 161

Stoeski v Regina [2014] NSWCCA 161

The sentencing judge applied the 25% guilty plea discount, made an open and adequately reasoned assessment that the applicant did not have good prospects of rehabilitation, permissibly assessed the objective seriousness of Counts 1 and 4 and the Form 1 matters, and properly took account of prior custody and parole revocation by backdating the aggregate sentence. Given the seriousness, planning and organised nature of the offending, the applicant's leading role, offending while on parole, and substantial criminal history, the aggregate sentence of 10 years with a non-parole period of 7 years was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Pursuant to S 5(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggregate Sentence' 'indicative Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'totality' 'form 1 Matters' 'parole Revocation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['aggregate Sentence' 'indicative Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'totality' 'form 1 Matters' 'parole Revocation']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Pursuant to S 5(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to apply the 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the guilty plea when setting the aggregate sentence.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant did not have good prospects of rehabilitation.' 'Whether the indicative sentences for Counts 1 and 4 were too high or reflected excessive weight given to objective seriousness and Form 1 matters.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to apply the totality principle having regard to earlier periods in custody and parole revocation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge applied the 25% guilty plea discount, made an open and adequately reasoned assessment that the applicant did not have good prospects of rehabilitation, permissibly assessed the objective seriousness of Counts 1 and 4 and the Form 1 matters, and properly took account of prior custody and parole revocation by backdating the aggregate sentence. Given the seriousness, planning and organised nature of the offending, the applicant's leading role, offending while on parole, and substantial criminal history, the aggregate sentence of 10 years with a non-parole period of 7 years was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']