R v Attard [2000] NSWCCA 299

R v Attard [2000] NSWCCA 299

Error was demonstrated because the sentencing judge did not advert to special circumstances, including the effect of accumulating sentences, and departed from the usual ratio between minimum and additional terms without explanation. Special circumstances existed, including the appellant's youth, absence of any prior full time custodial sentence, accumulation of sentences, and need for extended supervision for drug dependency, justifying resentencing on count 15.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Sentence Appeal From Drug Court / Appeal by Way of Rehearing and Resentencing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on counts 1 to 14 and count 16; appeal allowed on count 15; sentence on count 15 quashed and replaced with a sentence of imprisonment for 10 months with a non-parole period of 5 months commencing 24 April 2000.
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'special Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'parole Supervision' 'drug Dependency']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Court'] ['sentence Appeal' 'special Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'parole Supervision' 'drug Dependency']

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

Sentence Appeal From Drug Court / Appeal by Way of Rehearing and Resentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Drug Court's final sentence failed to take into account special circumstances, including the accumulation of sentences." 'Whether post-sentence evidence should be considered on resentencing.' 'Whether the sentence should be varied to provide a longer period of supervision on parole.']

Ratio Decidendi

Error was demonstrated because the sentencing judge did not advert to special circumstances, including the effect of accumulating sentences, and departed from the usual ratio between minimum and additional terms without explanation. Special circumstances existed, including the appellant's youth, absence of any prior full time custodial sentence, accumulation of sentences, and need for extended supervision for drug dependency, justifying resentencing on count 15.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on counts 1 to 14 and count 16; appeal allowed on count 15; sentence on count 15 quashed and replaced with a sentence of imprisonment for 10 months with a non-parole period of 5 months commencing 24 April 2000.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed on counts 1 to 14 (both inclusive) and count 16.' 'On count 15 (take and drive motor vehicle - 24/11/99) appeal allowed; sentence quashed.' 'In lieu of the sentence imposed on count 15 the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months with a non parole period of 5 months; the sentence to...