R v SUTTON [2000] NSWCCA 145
Leave to appeal is granted, but the appeal is dismissed. The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive nor in breach of sentencing principles, including totality. Although error may have existed in differentiating count 14 from counts 2–13, such error was inconsequential and did not justify intervention.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
- Outcome
- leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['sentencing' 'principle of Totality' 'accumulation and Concurrence of Sentences' 'manifestly Excessive Sentences' 'rehabilitation' 'delay in Prosecution']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed by Ducker DCJ were manifestly excessive' 'Whether the principle of totality was appropriately applied' 'Whether the sentencing was consistent with High Court authority, particularly Pearce v R' 'Whether delay in prosecution should have been taken into account' 'Whether sentencing differentiation between counts was justified']
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal is granted, but the appeal is dismissed. The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive nor in breach of sentencing principles, including totality. Although error may have existed in differentiating count 14 from counts 2–13, such error was inconsequential and did not justify intervention.
Court Disposition
leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal granted' 'Appeal dismissed']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment