GARLAND v REGINA [2009] NSWCCA 217

GARLAND v REGINA [2009] NSWCCA 217

None of the applicant's grounds disclosed error or a miscarriage of justice. The solicitor's conduct was not incompetent; the sentencing judge made and acted on a finding of extra curial punishment; the decision to backdate the first series of sentences by more than 2 months involved no error; the 25% guilty plea discount was appropriate; and the sentences, including the 2 year term for possessing safebreaking implements with 8 Form 1 offences taken into account, were within the permissible range and were, if anything, lenient.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'manifest Excess' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'backdating Sentence' 'incompetent Legal Representation' 'parole Revocation' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'manifest Excess' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'backdating Sentence' 'incompetent Legal Representation' 'parole Revocation' 'form 1 Offences']

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 Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was properly represented during the sentencing hearing.' 'Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or outside the permissible range.' 'Whether extra curial punishment was taken into account appropriately.' 'Whether the sentences should have been backdated to the time of arrest or plea.' 'Whether a greater discount or sentencing allowance should have been given for the guilty pleas and other matters.']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the applicant's grounds disclosed error or a miscarriage of justice. The solicitor's conduct was not incompetent; the sentencing judge made and acted on a finding of extra curial punishment; the decision to backdate the first series of sentences by more than 2 months involved no error; the 25% guilty plea discount was appropriate; and the sentences, including the 2 year term for possessing safebreaking implements with 8 Form 1 offences taken into account, were within the permissible range and were, if anything, lenient.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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