R v HARE [2007] NSWCCA 303

R v HARE [2007] NSWCCA 303

Although the sentencing judge imposed sentences that were found to be excessively lenient and below the appropriate range for the quantity and seriousness of the offences, the Court declined to intervene due to the respondent's legitimate expectation that the sentence would not be challenged after its variation (to which the Crown made no objection), and due to the exceptional hardship caused to the respondent's dependent son if the sentence were increased. As such, the Court exercised its discretion not to interfere despite identifying manifest inadequacy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['obtaining a Financial Benefit by Deception' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'crown Appeal' 'sentencing Principles']
['criminal Law'] ['obtaining a Financial Benefit by Deception' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'crown Appeal' 'sentencing Principles']

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 / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for offences of obtaining a financial benefit by deception were manifestly inadequate' "Whether the sentencing judge gave inappropriate weight to the respondent's subjective circumstances" 'Whether proper regard was given to the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences and the impact on multiple victims' 'Whether special circumstances were properly considered in determining the non-parole period']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge imposed sentences that were found to be excessively lenient and below the appropriate range for the quantity and seriousness of the offences, the Court declined to intervene due to the respondent's legitimate expectation that the sentence would not be challenged after its variation (to which the Crown made no objection), and due to the exceptional hardship caused to the respondent's dependent son if the sentence were increased. As such, the Court exercised its discretion not to interfere despite identifying manifest inadequacy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal by the Crown against sentence is dismissed.']