Terry Peter Stumbles v R [2006] NSWCCA 418

Terry Peter Stumbles v R [2006] NSWCCA 418

Fresh evidence regarding the applicant's younger child's diagnosis and exceptional needs, unavailable at time of sentence, constitutes exceptional hardship justifying reception and a reduction in sentence. Sentencing disparity between applicant and co-offender Fairall further supports reduction in non-parole period, and re-sentencing is appropriate on this basis.

Parties
Applicant: Terry Peter Stumbles; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave and Resentencing
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; sentence on Count 3 quashed and replaced with reduced non-parole period; applicant to be released on parole on 13 January 2007.
Legal Topics
Accessory Before the Fact, Stealing Motor Vehicle, Sentence Appeal, Fresh Evidence, Disparity, Exceptional Hardship
Criminal Law Accessory Before the Fact Stealing Motor Vehicle Sentence Appeal Fresh Evidence Disparity Exceptional Hardship

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terry Peter Stumbles

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave and Resentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence relating to offender's family hardship justifies receiving it post-sentence and warrants reduction in sentence
  2. 2 Whether sentencing disparity exists compared to co-offender
  3. 3 Appropriate sentence given circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Fresh evidence regarding the applicant's younger child's diagnosis and exceptional needs, unavailable at time of sentence, constitutes exceptional hardship justifying reception and a reduction in sentence. Sentencing disparity between applicant and co-offender Fairall further supports reduction in non-parole period, and re-sentencing is appropriate on this basis.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; sentence on Count 3 quashed and replaced with reduced non-parole period; applicant to be released on parole on 13 January 2007.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal allowed in part.