Chandler v R [2008] NSWCCA 240

Chandler v R [2008] NSWCCA 240

The sentencing judge did not err in declining to reduce sentence for partial recovery of property, did not fail in consideration of an Ellis discount or in setting the sentence starting point, gave proper weight to the Asperger’s syndrome diagnosis, and was not wrong not to condition parole or deduct further time for proposed rehabilitation efforts; nor did jurisdictional comparisons with the Local Court demonstrate error. No appealable error established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Determination of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'break and Enter Offences' 'mitigation' 'special Circumstances' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'ellis Discount']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'break and Enter Offences' 'mitigation' 'special Circumstances' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'ellis Discount']

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 Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Determination of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider the partial recovery of stolen property as a mitigating factor' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in not allowing an Ellis discount for disclosure of additional offences' 'Whether the starting point for sentencing was manifestly excessive' "Whether Asperger's syndrome diagnosis was misconstrued or not properly taken into account" 'Whether rehabilitation prospects or proposed attendance at rehabilitation should affect sentence or parole conditions' 'Whether the sentence exceeded what would have been imposed in the Local Court']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in declining to reduce sentence for partial recovery of property, did not fail in consideration of an Ellis discount or in setting the sentence starting point, gave proper weight to the Asperger’s syndrome diagnosis, and was not wrong not to condition parole or deduct further time for proposed rehabilitation efforts; nor did jurisdictional comparisons with the Local Court demonstrate error. No appealable error established.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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