NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Garcia-Godos v R [2021] NSWCCA 229 Hearing dates: 3 September 2021 Decision date: 24 September 2021 Before: Simpson AJA at [1]; Adamson J at [30]; Lonergan J at [97] Decision: (1) Extend the time within which the applicant is to file an application for leave to appeal to 12 April 2021. (2) Grant leave to appeal. (3) Dismiss the appeal. Catchwords: CRIME — Appeals — Application for extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence not opposed by Crown —Sentencing judge failed to take into account utilitarian value of the plea of guilty — Correctness of Diaz v R [2019] NSWCCA 216 not in issue as Crown conceded (based on Diaz v R) that re-sentence in accordance with Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 was required even where the only error is a "Xiao error" and there is no challenge to the percentage discounts for the pleas of guilty — Not satisfied that any lesser overall sentence or non-parole period is warranted — Appeal dismissed CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Sentencing —Sentencing judge questioned the Crown about the appropriateness of a particular sentence — Consideration of the ambit of the prohibition in Barbaro v The Queen — no breach of prohibition established Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16BA Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 22, 44 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11.2, 11.5, 305.3, 307.1, 400.4 Cases Cited: Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2 Diaz v R [2019] NSWCCA 216 Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Karan v R [2013] NSWCCA 53 Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Lehn v R (2016) 93 NSWLR 205; [2016] NSWCCA 255 Maldonado v R [2009] NSWCCA 189 Martin v R [2016] NSWCCA 104 Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26 R v Dashti [2016] NSWCCA 251 R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120; (2014) 243 A Crim R 31 Tyler v R [2007] NSWCCA 247; (2007) 173 A Crim R 458 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Luis Garcia-Godos (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Woods / W Evatt (Applicant) B Anniwell (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