Stock v R [2011] NSWCCA 49

Stock v R [2011] NSWCCA 49

In the absence of evidence showing the nature and circumstances of the forfeiture settlement, and given the sentencing judge did consider remorse and subjective features, there was no error made in the sentencing process and no manifest excess given the objective seriousness and statutory standard non-parole period....

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'remorse' 'contrition' 'cooperation in Forfeiture Proceedings' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'remorse' 'contrition' 'cooperation in Forfeiture Proceedings' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing']

Source-derived case record

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 insufficient weight was given to applicant's contrition and remorse" 'Whether insufficient weight was given to participation in forfeiture proceedings and money paid to the State' 'Whether the penalty imposed was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of evidence showing the nature and circumstances of the forfeiture settlement, and given the sentencing judge did consider remorse and subjective features, there was no error made in the sentencing process and no manifest excess given the objective seriousness and statutory standard non-parole period. Appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Leave to file the appeal out of time is granted.' 'Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']