NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Kuruppu v R [2021] NSWCCA 261 Hearing dates: 27 August 2021 Date of orders: 05 November 2021 Decision date: 05 November 2021 Before: Meagher JA at [1]; Wright J at [2]; Fagan J at [227] Decision: (1) The applicant is granted an extension of time in which to file a notice of application for leave to appeal in the matters with file numbers 2016/0019453, 2015/00101365 and 2016/000580335. (2) The applicant has leave to appeal in each of the matters 2016/00194535, 2015/00101365 and 2016/00058033. (3) The appeal in each of the matters 2016/00194535, 2015/00101365 and 2016/00058033 is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIME — appeals — appeal against sentence — application for leave to appeal — extension of time in which to appeal — manifest excess — reliance on cases said to be comparable — sentences not manifestly excessive — extension of time and leave granted — appeal dismissed CRIME — appeals — appeal against sentence — application for leave to appeal — extension of time in which to appeal — misapplication of principle — whether sentencing judge erred in rejecting expert opinions of psychologist — whether sentencing judge failed to find special circumstances or give practical effect to such a finding — whether sentencing judge erred in placing too much weight on general deterrence — whether sentencing judge failed to request sentencing assessment report — whether excessive accumulation of sentences — no House v The King errors — extension of time and leave granted — appeal dismissed CRIME — apprehended violence order — contravene apprehended violence order CRIME — property offences — break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence — circumstances of aggravation CRIME — violent offences — common assault — choking, suffocation or strangulation — cause grievous bodily harm with intent WORDS AND PHRASES — "convicted inmate" — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 56 Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), s 4 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 14 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3, 6, 7, 12, 44, 47, 53A, 56, 69, 76, 80, 88 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 33, 35, 37, 59, 61, 113 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 32 Cases Cited: Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114 Australian Health & Nutrition Association Ltd v Hive Marketing Group Pty Ltd (2019) 99 NSWLR 419; [2019] NSWCA 61 Banks v R [2018] NSWCCA 41 Chung v Anderson [2004] NSWCA 321 CM v R [2020] NSWCCA 136 Delaney v R [2013] NSWCCA 150; (2013) 230 A Crim R 581 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) (2003) 214 CLR 318; [2003] HCA 28 GAS v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22 GP v R [2017] NSWCCA 200 Haines v R [2021] NSWCCA 149 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Jackson v R [2021] NSWCCA 15 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; 246 A Crim R 528 Lai v R [2021] NSWCCA 217 Little v R [2009] NSWCCA 113 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305 Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160; 284 A Crim R 87 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 Pannowitz v R [2016] NSWCCA 13 Primmer v R [2015] NSWCCA 155; 71 MVR 300 R v Anderson (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), Lee CJ at CL, Mathews and Sharpe JJ, 9 April 1991, unrep) R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85 R v Fyffe [2002] NSWSC 751 R v Hollaway [2013] NSWSC 218 R v Hollaway [2016] NSWCCA 166 R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 R v Jeremiah [2016] NSWCCA 241 R v Toohey [2019] NSWCCA 182 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115; 195 A Crim R 38 Roach v R [2019] NSWCCA 160; 344 FLR 429 Tammer-Spence v R [2021] NSWCCA 90 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46 Tohifolau v R [2018] NSWCCA 283 Tsiakas v R [2015] NSWCCA 187 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Yi Hong Puan v R [2009] NSWCCA 194 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sampath Kuruppu (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (self-represented)
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