Ruttley v R [2010] NSWCCA 118

Ruttley v R [2010] NSWCCA 118

The initial sentences were manifestly excessive and disproportionate, given the applicant's youth, lack of criminal history, his prompt admission and post-offence conduct, and comparatively lenient treatment of the juvenile co-offender for a more serious offence. A less severe sentence was warranted by law under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, justifying quashing of the original sentences and substituting new terms allowing for the applicant’s immediate release.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed, sentences quashed, new sentences imposed, applicant released forthwith
Legal Topics
['offences Against the Person' 'enter Dwelling With Intent to Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'sentencing' 'appeal Against Severity of Sentence' 'voluntary Disclosure' 'remorse' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'parity With Co Offender' 'proportionality']
['criminal Law'] ['offences Against the Person' 'enter Dwelling With Intent to Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'sentencing' 'appeal Against Severity of Sentence' 'voluntary Disclosure' 'remorse' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'parity With Co Offender' 'proportionality']

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 / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by not taking voluntary disclosure into account as mitigation' 'Whether prospects of rehabilitation were not considered' 'Whether failure to set non-parole period for count 2 was an error' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive' 'Whether parity with the co-offender warranted a lesser sentence']

Ratio Decidendi

The initial sentences were manifestly excessive and disproportionate, given the applicant's youth, lack of criminal history, his prompt admission and post-offence conduct, and comparatively lenient treatment of the juvenile co-offender for a more serious offence. A less severe sentence was warranted by law under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, justifying quashing of the original sentences and substituting new terms allowing for the applicant’s immediate release.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, sentences quashed, new sentences imposed, applicant released forthwith

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted' 'Appeal allowed, sentences quashed' 'On count 1: to imprisonment for 3 years, commencing on 14 January 2009, with a non-parole period of 16 months, expiring on 13 May 2010, and a balance of term of 20 months expiring on 13 January 2012' 'On count 2: a fixed term of imprisonment of 16...