Batty v R [2016] NSWCCA 121

Batty v R [2016] NSWCCA 121

It is not possible to reason from the sentence imposed that error occurred or that one or other factor was attributed such weight as to constitute double punishment or double counting. The sentencing Judge exercised his discretion within the permissible range, and the ground of appeal does not succeed.

Parties
Applicant: Steven James Batty; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Sentence, Supply of Prohibited Drug, Double Counting, Aggravating Factors, Drug Offences
Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence Supply of Prohibited Drug Double Counting Aggravating Factors Drug Offences

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven James Batty

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing Judge erroneously 'double counted' the fact that the offence was committed while on parole
  2. 2 Whether the sentence involved double punishment due to partial accumulation upon the balance of the parole period
  3. 3 Whether the commission of the offence while on parole was treated as an aggravating factor

Ratio Decidendi

It is not possible to reason from the sentence imposed that error occurred or that one or other factor was attributed such weight as to constitute double punishment or double counting. The sentencing Judge exercised his discretion within the permissible range, and the ground of appeal does not succeed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused