R v Teoka & Ors [2004] NSWCCA 373

R v Teoka & Ors [2004] NSWCCA 373

Teoka's sentence, although heavy, was within range having regard to the savage violence, serious permanent injuries, aggravating and mitigating factors, and his subjective circumstances; the only correction required was the commencement date. Lloyd's culpability was substantially comparable to Teoka's and the unexplained lower guilty plea discount caused a justifiable sense of grievance, so he should receive the same sentence as Teoka. ADM was more culpable and lacked remorse, but his age and parity considerations meant he too should receive the same sentence as Teoka, not a higher one.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave granted and appeals allowed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Robbery' 'parity of Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'youth and Sentencing' 'remorse' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'objective Seriousness' 'grave Adult Behaviour']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Robbery' 'parity of Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'youth and Sentencing' 'remorse' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'objective Seriousness' 'grave Adult Behaviour']

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 / Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge impermissibly relied on an ingredient of the offence as an aggravating factor contrary to s21A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether reliance on R v Weldon & Carberry involved error.' 'Whether differences between the sentences imposed on the applicants breached the parity principle and gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to have regard to s6 of the Children's (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 in sentencing ADM." "What allowance should be made for the applicants' ages, remorse, criminal histories, guilty pleas and relative culpability."]

Ratio Decidendi

Teoka's sentence, although heavy, was within range having regard to the savage violence, serious permanent injuries, aggravating and mitigating factors, and his subjective circumstances; the only correction required was the commencement date. Lloyd's culpability was substantially comparable to Teoka's and the unexplained lower guilty plea discount caused a justifiable sense of grievance, so he should receive the same sentence as Teoka. ADM was more culpable and lacked remorse, but his age and parity considerations meant he too should receive the same sentence as Teoka, not a higher one.

Court Disposition

Leave granted and appeals allowed.

Orders

  • ['R v Teoka: leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed; sentence imposed by Hosking DCJ on 21 November 2003 confirmed; applicant sentenced to imprisonment for a total term of 10 years with a non-parole period of 6 years, both commencing on 6 February 2003, with the non-parole period expiring on 5 February 2009.' 'R...