R v Tuncbilek [2004] NSWCCA 139

R v Tuncbilek [2004] NSWCCA 139

The original sentences were manifestly excessive and imposed without proper reference to the standard non-parole period regime. The failure to consider and record reasons for departing from the statutory standard non-parole period for aggravated car-jacking, as required under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, constituted error. On resentencing, the applicant should receive terms reflecting both statutory requirements and appropriate adjustments for special circumstances and parity considerations.

Parties
Applicant: Tarkan Tuncbilek; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences quashed; applicant re-sentenced
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Appeal, Aggravated Car Jacking, Assault With Intent to Rob, Manifestly Excessive Sentence, Parity, Special Circumstances
Criminal Law Sentencing Appeal Aggravated Car Jacking Assault With Intent to Rob Manifestly Excessive Sentence Parity Special Circumstances

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarkan Tuncbilek

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in not finding special circumstances to vary the non-parole period
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing judge erred in not taking into account the standard non-parole period for aggravated car-jacking

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentences were manifestly excessive and imposed without proper reference to the standard non-parole period regime. The failure to consider and record reasons for departing from the statutory standard non-parole period for aggravated car-jacking, as required under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, constituted error. On resentencing, the applicant should receive terms reflecting both statutory requirements and appropriate adjustments for special circumstances and parity considerations.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences quashed; applicant re-sentenced

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed, sentences quashed