Quinlan v R [2007] NSWCCA 109

Quinlan v R [2007] NSWCCA 109

The sentencing judge was aware of the totality principle and the effect of the aggregate sentences, including that the parole period was comparatively short, but deliberately declined to reduce the non-parole period or increase the parole period because doing so would produce either an inadequate or excessive sentence. Given the very high individual and cumulative criminality and despite the applicant's subjective circumstances, no lesser sentences could properly have been passed, so the sole ground of appeal failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'aggregate Head Sentence and Aggregate Non Parole Period' 'partial Concurrency and Accumulation' 'special Circumstances' 'principle of Totality' 'standard Non Parole Periods']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sentence Appeal' 'aggregate Head Sentence and Aggregate Non Parole Period' 'partial Concurrency and Accumulation' 'special Circumstances' 'principle of Totality' 'standard Non Parole Periods']

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 Law Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred with regard to the relationship between the length of the aggregate head sentence and the aggregate non-parole period.' 'Whether, given special circumstances based on youth and rehabilitation, the total parole period should have been equal to or greater than one-third of the non-parole period.' 'Whether any lesser sentence could properly have been passed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was aware of the totality principle and the effect of the aggregate sentences, including that the parole period was comparatively short, but deliberately declined to reduce the non-parole period or increase the parole period because doing so would produce either an inadequate or excessive sentence. Given the very high individual and cumulative criminality and despite the applicant's subjective circumstances, no lesser sentences could properly have been passed, so the sole ground of appeal failed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']