XX v R [2018] NSWCCA 112

XX v R [2018] NSWCCA 112

The appeal failed because the applicant did not demonstrate that the sentences were unreasonable, plainly unjust or outside the range available to the sentencing judge. The starting points were open having regard to the 25-year maximum penalty for each s 97(2) offence, the objective seriousness findings, the Form 1 firearms offence, and the principles of general and specific deterrence. The sentencing judge adequately considered R v Henry and comparable cases, and the sentences were not shown to be anomalous or affected by error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery While Armed With a Dangerous Weapon' 'assault With Intent to Rob While Armed With a Dangerous Weapon' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'comparable Cases' 'guideline Judgments' 'form 1 Offences' 'discount for Guilty Plea and Assistance to Authorities']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['robbery While Armed With a Dangerous Weapon' 'assault With Intent to Rob While Armed With a Dangerous Weapon' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'comparable Cases' 'guideline Judgments' 'form 1 Offences' 'discount for Guilty Plea and Assistance to Authorities']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon and assault with intent to rob while armed with a dangerous weapon were manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge's starting points for each offence were too high having regard to objective seriousness and the applicant's subjective circumstances." 'Whether the sentences were inconsistent with comparable cases and the guideline judgment in R v Henry.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the applicant did not demonstrate that the sentences were unreasonable, plainly unjust or outside the range available to the sentencing judge. The starting points were open having regard to the 25-year maximum penalty for each s 97(2) offence, the objective seriousness findings, the Form 1 firearms offence, and the principles of general and specific deterrence. The sentencing judge adequately considered R v Henry and comparable cases, and the sentences were not shown to be anomalous or affected by error.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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