Dickinson v R [2016] NSWCCA 301

Dickinson v R [2016] NSWCCA 301

The sentencing judge did not err in the assessment of objective gravity: read fairly, the remarks did not treat the applicant's prior record as part of objective gravity, and the description of the offences as very serious did not demonstrate error given the repeated daytime residential break, enter and steal offences, the substantial value and sentimental character of property stolen, and ransacking of premises. However, the judge proceeded under a misapprehension that the assaulting an officer sentence had a 9 month non-parole period when it was 5 months, affecting the discretion as to the commencement date. The aggregate sentence was therefore confirmed but backdated to commence on 10...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed; aggregate sentence confirmed with adjusted commencement date; applicant referred to the Drug Court for assessment as the subject of a compulsory drug treatment order.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'aggregate Sentence' 'objective Gravity' 'prior Criminal History' 'commencement Date of Sentence' 'compulsory Drug Treatment Order Referral']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'aggregate Sentence' 'objective Gravity' 'prior Criminal History' 'commencement Date of Sentence' 'compulsory Drug Treatment Order Referral']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge wrongly treated the applicant's prior record for similar offences as relevant to the objective gravity of the offences." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in characterising each offence as objectively very serious.' 'Whether the commencement date of the aggregate sentence should be adjusted because the sentencing judge misunderstood the non-parole period for an offence of assaulting an officer in the execution of his duty.' 'Whether the applicant should be referred to the Drug Court for assessment as the subject of a compulsory drug treatment order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in the assessment of objective gravity: read fairly, the remarks did not treat the applicant's prior record as part of objective gravity, and the description of the offences as very serious did not demonstrate error given the repeated daytime residential break, enter and steal offences, the substantial value and sentimental character of property stolen, and ransacking of premises. However, the judge proceeded under a misapprehension that the assaulting an officer sentence had a 9 month non-parole period when it was 5 months, affecting the discretion as to the commencement date. The aggregate sentence was therefore confirmed but backdated to commence on 10...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed; aggregate sentence confirmed with adjusted commencement date; applicant referred to the Drug Court for assessment as the subject of a compulsory drug treatment order.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted and appeal is allowed.' 'The aggregate sentence passed in the District Court is confirmed, but is directed to commence on 10 September 2014. Accordingly, that sentence will comprise a non-parole period of 5 years, commencing on 10 September 2014 and expiring on 9 September 2019, and a...