Lee v R [2020] NSWCCA 244

Lee v R [2020] NSWCCA 244

The aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive because, although some accumulation was justified by the presence of multiple victims and the indicative sentences were high but not themselves excessive, the robberies and the Form 1 robbery were committed within an instant of one another as part of the same criminal endeavour. The notional commencement of one sentence two years after the other reflected an approach to totality more suitable to entirely separate offending than to multiple robbery offences committed at the same time on the occupants of a car.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal allowed; original sentence set aside; applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'aggregate Sentence' 'notional Accumulation' 'totality' 'form 1 Offences' 'special Circumstances' 'youth and Disadvantaged Background']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['robbery in Company' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'aggregate Sentence' 'notional Accumulation' 'totality' 'form 1 Offences' 'special Circumstances' 'youth and Disadvantaged Background']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentence of 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the notional accumulation reflected in the aggregate sentence gave proper effect to totality where the robbery offences occurred at effectively the same time and formed part of the same criminal endeavour.']

Ratio Decidendi

The aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive because, although some accumulation was justified by the presence of multiple victims and the indicative sentences were high but not themselves excessive, the robberies and the Form 1 robbery were committed within an instant of one another as part of the same criminal endeavour. The notional commencement of one sentence two years after the other reflected an approach to totality more suitable to entirely separate offending than to multiple robbery offences committed at the same time on the occupants of a car.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal allowed; original sentence set aside; applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'The sentence imposed on the appellant on 25 July 2019 is set aside.' 'Sentence the appellant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years commencing on 27 September 2018 and expiring on 26 September 2022.' 'Pursuant to s 44(2A) of the Crimes...