TRINDALL v R [2007] NSWCCA 119

TRINDALL v R [2007] NSWCCA 119

The sentencing judge did not err by declining to find special circumstances or by imposing an overall non-parole period that was 91.49% of the overall sentence. The judge deliberately adjusted the individual serious sentences by substantial concurrency to achieve totality while preserving what he considered an appropriate period of full-time custody. Maintaining the statutory ratio would have led to an increase in the overall term rather than a reduction of the non-parole period. Given the prolonged and extremely serious offending against seven victims, the overall sentence of 23 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 21 years and 6 months was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Assault Offences' 'detain for Advantage' 'robbery' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'totality' 'slip Rule' 'partly Cumulative and Partly Concurrent Sentences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Assault Offences' 'detain for Advantage' 'robbery' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'totality' 'slip Rule' 'partly Cumulative and Partly Concurrent Sentences']

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

Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in not finding special circumstances under s 44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 when fixing partly cumulative and partly concurrent sentences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the principles of totality by giving insufficient consideration to the ratio between the non-parole and parole portions of the overall sentence.' 'Whether the parole and non-parole periods imposed were appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err by declining to find special circumstances or by imposing an overall non-parole period that was 91.49% of the overall sentence. The judge deliberately adjusted the individual serious sentences by substantial concurrency to achieve totality while preserving what he considered an appropriate period of full-time custody. Maintaining the statutory ratio would have led to an increase in the overall term rather than a reduction of the non-parole period. Given the prolonged and extremely serious offending against seven victims, the overall sentence of 23 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 21 years and 6 months was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'The order previously made suppressing the publication of the names of the victims is continued.']