NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Greaves v R [2020] NSWCCA 140 Hearing dates: 22 May 2020 Date of orders: 26 June 2020 Decision date: 26 June 2020 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Hamill J at [2] Cavanagh J at [3] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal is granted. (2) The appeal is upheld. (3) The sentence imposed in the District Court on 17 April 2019 is quashed. (4) In lieu thereof, a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 20 months starting from 27 March 2019 is imposed. (5) The applicant will first be eligible for release on parole on 27 November 2020 and the head sentence will expire on 26 March 2022. Catchwords: SENTENCING — appeal against sentence — co-offenders — disparity between sentences — co-offenders sentenced in Local Court and applicant in District Court — where sentencing judge did not consider parity when sentencing applicant — whether justifiable sense of grievance — whether failure of applicant's counsel on sentence to raise parity should be taken as acceptance of its limited role in determination of sentence — resentencing Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59, 112, 117, 195 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 53A Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 268 Cases Cited: Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Park v R [2020] NSWCCA 90 Pecora v The Queen [1980] VR 499 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115; [2000] NSWCCA 317 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242 R v Tisalandis [1982] 2 NSWLR 430 Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1) under s 26 of the Criminal Procedure Act; R v Ponfield; R v Scott; R v Ryan; R v Johnson (1999) 48 NSWLR 327; [1999] NSWCCA 435 Scicluna v R [2008] NSWCCA 24; 181 A Crim R 133; Tobia v R [2016] NSWCCA 99 Shortland v R [2013] NSWCCA 4 Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Edward Greaves (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Evers (Applicant) G Newton (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate