TS v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 194

TS v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 194

The sentences miscarried because the sentencing judge failed to allow for the applicant's early pleas of guilty, misapprehended or misapplied R v Henry, treated companions as an aggravating feature for offences not committed in company, treated the applicant's prior record as aggravating in a manner not explained consistently with Veen (No 2), and did not properly reflect the Form 1 offences in the sentence for offence 5. The sentences were quashed and the applicant was resentenced, with regard to his youth, contrition, rehabilitation prospects, conditional liberty, threats of harm, the need for modest accumulation, and the seriousness of the armed robberies.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Resentencing in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences imposed on 29 September 2006 quashed; applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery' 'juvenile Offender' 'early Plea of Guilty' 'aggravating Factors' 'form 1 Offences' 'guideline Judgment in R V Henry' 'totality' 'prior Convictions']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['armed Robbery' 'juvenile Offender' 'early Plea of Guilty' 'aggravating Factors' 'form 1 Offences' 'guideline Judgment in R V Henry' 'totality' 'prior Convictions']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Resentencing in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant's pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity." 'Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by treating the presence of companions as an aggravating factor for offences not committed in company.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating the applicant's previous record as an aggravating factor without applying the common law principles in Veen v The Queen (No 2)." 'Whether the sentencing judge properly took into account the offences on the Form 1 when sentencing for offence 5.' 'Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and required resentencing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences miscarried because the sentencing judge failed to allow for the applicant's early pleas of guilty, misapprehended or misapplied R v Henry, treated companions as an aggravating feature for offences not committed in company, treated the applicant's prior record as aggravating in a manner not explained consistently with Veen (No 2), and did not properly reflect the Form 1 offences in the sentence for offence 5. The sentences were quashed and the applicant was resentenced, with regard to his youth, contrition, rehabilitation prospects, conditional liberty, threats of harm, the need for modest accumulation, and the seriousness of the armed robberies.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences imposed on 29 September 2006 quashed; applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Quash the sentences imposed on 29 September 2006 and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant for each of offences 1, 2 and 3, to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months commencing on 31 March 2005, and a balance of term of 1 year.' 'For offence 4, sentence...