Cross v R [2019] NSWCCA 280

Cross v R [2019] NSWCCA 280

The sentencing judge was not required to consider community safety under s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act when the length of the sentence precluded the making of an Intensive Correction Order; the findings on parity, mental health, and the adequacy of reasons were sufficient and consistent with established principles; no appealable error was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'aggravated Kidnapping' 'intensive Correction Order' 'community Safety' 'parity' 'mental Health' 'adequacy of Reasons']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'aggravated Kidnapping' 'intensive Correction Order' 'community Safety' 'parity' 'mental Health' 'adequacy of Reasons']

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 Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sentencing judge failed to have regard to community safety as paramount consideration under s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) in relation to Intensive Correction Order' 'Whether sentencing judge misapplied the principle of parity' "Whether sentencing judge failed to properly take account of applicant's mental health" 'Whether sentencing judge failed to give adequate reasons']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was not required to consider community safety under s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act when the length of the sentence precluded the making of an Intensive Correction Order; the findings on parity, mental health, and the adequacy of reasons were sufficient and consistent with established principles; no appealable error was established.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']