Dowling v R [2017] NSWCCA 98

Dowling v R [2017] NSWCCA 98

The sentencing judge was entitled and obliged to sentence on the statement of facts tendered by the Crown without objection, and there was no basis to revisit those facts on appeal. The applicant's proposed arithmetical reduction did not accord with instinctive synthesis. Having regard to the seriousness of the offending, the applicant's criminal history and parole status, the allowed concurrence and accumulation, and the favourable findings made for the applicant, no error was shown in the individual sentences or the total effective sentence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manifest Excess' 'agreed Facts on Sentence' 'plea of Guilty' 'instinctive Synthesis' 'totality' 'aggravated Robbery' 'aggravated Assault With Intent to Take or Drive Motor Vehicle' 'police Pursuit']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manifest Excess' 'agreed Facts on Sentence' 'plea of Guilty' 'instinctive Synthesis' 'totality' 'aggravated Robbery' 'aggravated Assault With Intent to Take or Drive Motor Vehicle' 'police Pursuit']

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 Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge proceeded on an incorrect factual basis.' 'Whether the individual sentences or the total effective sentence were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether post-sentence conduct in custody needed to be considered if no sentencing error was established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled and obliged to sentence on the statement of facts tendered by the Crown without objection, and there was no basis to revisit those facts on appeal. The applicant's proposed arithmetical reduction did not accord with instinctive synthesis. Having regard to the seriousness of the offending, the applicant's criminal history and parole status, the allowed concurrence and accumulation, and the favourable findings made for the applicant, no error was shown in the individual sentences or the total effective sentence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']