Regina v Hooper [2004] NSWCCA 10

Regina v Hooper [2004] NSWCCA 10

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because no sentencing error was shown. Count 2 was an offence under s 33 of the Crimes Act despite references to s 33A, and the sentencing judge did not offend De Simoni. Wounding could be taken into account on count 3 because an offence under s 98 was not more serious than an offence under s 97(2). The offences were very serious, the guilty pleas and protective custody were expressly considered, the asserted remorse could be disregarded, parity did not require intervention given the different offences and circumstances of Adams, the treatment of special circumstances disclosed no error, and the overall sentence was not manifestly...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery' 'firearm Offences' 'the Queen V De Simoni' 'parity in Sentencing' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'protective Custody' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['armed Robbery' 'firearm Offences' 'the Queen V De Simoni' 'parity in Sentencing' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'protective Custody' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess']

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 Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge took into account allegations or conduct the subject of more serious charges not pressed, contrary to The Queen v De Simoni.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in describing the offences as most serious examples of their type.' "Whether the sentencing judge adequately took into account the applicant's pleas of guilty and protective custody." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in disregarding asserted remorse.' "Whether the applicant's culpability was wrongly assessed as not diminished when compared with the co-offender." "Whether disparity between the applicant's sentence and the co-offender's sentence created a justified sense of grievance." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in dealing with special circumstances and prospects of rehabilitation.' 'Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because no sentencing error was shown. Count 2 was an offence under s 33 of the Crimes Act despite references to s 33A, and the sentencing judge did not offend De Simoni. Wounding could be taken into account on count 3 because an offence under s 98 was not more serious than an offence under s 97(2). The offences were very serious, the guilty pleas and protective custody were expressly considered, the asserted remorse could be disregarded, parity did not require intervention given the different offences and circumstances of Adams, the treatment of special circumstances disclosed no error, and the overall sentence was not manifestly...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to appeal against the sentences imposed on the applicant.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.']