R v ROBERTSON [2001] NSWCCA 95

R v ROBERTSON [2001] NSWCCA 95

No sentencing error was demonstrated. The four-year sentence on the Ravasia count adequately reflected the applicant's plea of guilty when the seven additional offences taken into account were considered. The six-month difference between the applicant's sentence and Kilroy's sentence on that count did not create a justifiable sense of grievance because the sentencing judge was considering the total criminality of both offenders. The effective head sentence and minimum term were not outside the sentencing discretion despite the applicant's youth and subjective circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'robbery Whilst Armed' 'guilty Plea' 'parity in Sentencing' 'totality' 'subjective Circumstances' 'prospects of Rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company' 'robbery Whilst Armed' 'guilty Plea' 'parity in Sentencing' 'totality' 'subjective Circumstances' 'prospects of 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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant's plea of guilty in relation to the robbery of Mr Ravasia." 'Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance because the sentence imposed on him for the Ravasia count was only slightly less than the sentence imposed on Kilroy.' "Whether accumulation of the sentences produced an overall term that was too long having regard to the applicant's youth, rehabilitation prospects and other subjective matters."]

Ratio Decidendi

No sentencing error was demonstrated. The four-year sentence on the Ravasia count adequately reflected the applicant's plea of guilty when the seven additional offences taken into account were considered. The six-month difference between the applicant's sentence and Kilroy's sentence on that count did not create a justifiable sense of grievance because the sentencing judge was considering the total criminality of both offenders. The effective head sentence and minimum term were not outside the sentencing discretion despite the applicant's youth and subjective circumstances.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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