Regina v Thomas Taig Lynn [2004] NSWCCA 222

Regina v Thomas Taig Lynn [2004] NSWCCA 222

It was open to make the sentence on count 3 cumulative because count 3 and the Form 1 matters were later, discrete offences and concurrency would not have reflected the total criminality. However, the sentencing judge indicated a 10-15 percent discount for the guilty pleas but appeared not to give effect to it. The appropriate course was to treat the original sentences as the notional starting point, apply a 10 percent discount to the overall sentence, confirm counts 1 and 2, and reduce the sentence and non-parole period on count 3.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['late Pleas of Guilty' 'discount for Utilitarian Value' 'transparency in Sentencing' 'form 1 Matters' 'indecent Assault on Person Under 16 Years and Under Authority']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['late Pleas of Guilty' 'discount for Utilitarian Value' 'transparency in Sentencing' 'form 1 Matters' 'indecent Assault on Person Under 16 Years and Under Authority']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the overall sentence imposed was excessive in all the circumstances.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessment of the sentence on count 3 and in ordering that sentence to be wholly cumulative on the sentences on counts 1 and 2.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to give effect to the indicated discount for the applicant's pleas of guilty." 'How offences taken into account on a Form 1 should affect sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to make the sentence on count 3 cumulative because count 3 and the Form 1 matters were later, discrete offences and concurrency would not have reflected the total criminality. However, the sentencing judge indicated a 10-15 percent discount for the guilty pleas but appeared not to give effect to it. The appropriate course was to treat the original sentences as the notional starting point, apply a 10 percent discount to the overall sentence, confirm counts 1 and 2, and reduce the sentence and non-parole period on count 3.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'As to the sentences on counts 1 and 2, dismiss the appeal.' 'As to the sentence on count 3, and taking into account matters on the Form 1, allow the appeal and quash the sentence.' 'In lieu, sentence the applicant to imprisonment for 3 years and 5 months to commence on 19 December 2004 and...