Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)Citation:[2023] HCA 3Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot JJDate:15 Feb 2023Case Number:S126/2022Read more

Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)Citation:[2023] HCA 3Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot JJDate:15 Feb 2023Case Number:S126/2022Read more

A sentencing judge's failure to undertake the assessment required by s 66(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) constitutes jurisdictional error, as it is a statutory precondition to the exercise of the power to make an intensive correction order.

Parties
Applicant: Unknown Applicant; Respondent: Unknown Respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Error, Sentencing Powers, Intensive Correction Order, Community Safety

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown Applicant

Applicant

Unknown Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether failure to comply with s 66(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) amounted to jurisdictional error
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge undertook the required assessment of community safety in accordance with s 66

Ratio Decidendi

A sentencing judge's failure to undertake the assessment required by s 66(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) constitutes jurisdictional error, as it is a statutory precondition to the exercise of the power to make an intensive correction order.

Court Disposition

Allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The decision of the sentencing judge is set aside.