R v Depoma [2003] NSWCCA 382

R v Depoma [2003] NSWCCA 382

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the Court was not persuaded that the sentencing judge overlooked the possible Local Court disposal, the accumulation of sentences, or the Fernando principles, and the two-year concurrent sentences with a non-parole period of one year and two months were not shown to fall outside the proper range of sentencing discretion given the applicant's criminal history, breach of parole circumstances, possession of additional stolen goods, and need for a substantial parole period directed to rehabilitation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['disposing of Stolen Property' 'summary Disposal' 'non Parole Period' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Offenders' 'drug Addiction and Rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['disposing of Stolen Property' 'summary Disposal' 'non Parole Period' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Offenders' 'drug Addiction and Rehabilitation']

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

Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider that the two offences could have been dealt with in the Local Court with a lower sentencing limit.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the effect of accumulating the sentences upon existing six-month terms expiring in May 2003.' "Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive having regard to the objective seriousness of the offences, the early guilty pleas, the applicant's subjective circumstances and the possibility of Local Court disposal." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account principles concerning sentencing persons of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the Court was not persuaded that the sentencing judge overlooked the possible Local Court disposal, the accumulation of sentences, or the Fernando principles, and the two-year concurrent sentences with a non-parole period of one year and two months were not shown to fall outside the proper range of sentencing discretion given the applicant's criminal history, breach of parole circumstances, possession of additional stolen goods, and need for a substantial parole period directed to rehabilitation.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']