NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: Josefski, Shane Stewart v R [2010] NSWCCA 41
HEARING DATE(S): 16/02/2010
JUDGMENT DATE: 8 March 2010
JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1; Howie J at 6; Davies J at 68
DECISION: Leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - whether offender punishable for unforeseen results of offence - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether Court should interfere to correct disparity
Crimes Act 1900 - s 112(2) LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 3A, 3A(g), 21A(2)(g), 21A(4) Sentencing Act (NT)
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
R v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193 Clarke v R [2009] NSWCCA 13 R v Agius [2000] 115 A Crim R 387 DPP v Arvanitidis [2008] VSCA 189 Lambie v State of Tasmania [2007] TASSC 10 R v Boyd [1975] VR 168 Wise v The Queen [1965] Tas SR 196 Inkson v R (1996) 6 Tas R 1 R v Agius [2000] SASC 258; 115 A Crim R 387 CASES CITED : Staats v The Queen (1998) 123 NTR 16; 101 A Crim R 461 R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300; 92004} 41 MVR 399 R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76 R v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274 R v MA [2004] NSWCCA 92; 145 A Crim R 434 R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272; 164 A Crim R 481 R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412 R v Solomon [2005] NSWCCA 158 R v henry [1999] NSWCCA 107; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Borkowski [2008] NSWCCA 102
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