R v Gray [2018] NSWCCA 241

R v Gray [2018] NSWCCA 241

By majority, the appeal was dismissed because, although the sentences were lenient and the structure was unusual, the effective sentence was not shown to be unreasonable or plainly unjust. The sentencing judge did not err in assessing the first offence as in the lower range of objective seriousness and the second as...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal; Crown Appeal Against Inadequacy of Sentence / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales on 17 November 2017
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'armed Robbery' 'assault With Intent to Rob While Armed' 'robbery Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'offending While on Parole' 'backdating of Sentence' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'totality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'armed Robbery' 'assault With Intent to Rob While Armed' 'robbery Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'offending While on Parole' 'backdating of Sentence' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'totality']

Source-derived case record

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 Sentencing Appeal; Crown Appeal Against Inadequacy of Sentence / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales on 17 November 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for assault with intent to rob while armed and robbery armed with an offensive weapon were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the backdating of the commencement dates for the sentences contributed to manifest inadequacy.' 'Whether the allowance for special circumstances produced manifestly inadequate individual and effective non-parole periods.' 'Whether the sentences adequately reflected the objective gravity of the offences, including that they were committed while the respondent was on parole.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the appeal was dismissed because, although the sentences were lenient and the structure was unusual, the effective sentence was not shown to be unreasonable or plainly unjust. The sentencing judge did not err in assessing the first offence as in the lower range of objective seriousness and the second as in the mid-range, and it was open to make a finding of special circumstances. The backdating of the sentences and the resulting non-parole period were discretionary matters, and uncertainties about the respondent's custody, delay, possible earlier plea and strong subjective circumstances meant the Crown had not established manifest inadequacy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']