NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: WAKEFIELD v R [2010] NSWCCA 12
HEARING DATE(S): 3 February 2010
JUDGMENT DATE: 11 February 2010
JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Simpson J at 38; RA Hulme J at 39
DECISION: Appeal allowed in part.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Sentence - Fraud by company officer - Multiple offences over extended period - Sentencing judge not satisfied that offender has good prospects of rehabilitation - Setting of non-parole period - Special circumstances not found - Effect of cumulation on proportion of non-parole period to head sentence - Adjustment appropriate - Otherwise no case for intervention by appellate court shown
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
Elyard v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 43 R v Christoff (2003) 140 A Crim R 45 R v Dunn [2007] NSWCCA 312 R v Fidow (2004) NSWCCA 172 R v Ibraham [2005] NSWCCA 43 CASES CITED : R v Kaliti [2001] NSWCCA 268 R v Kama (2000) 110 A Crim R 47 R v Lyndon [2003] NSWCCA 152 R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 R v Vuni [2006] NSWCCA 171 The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 The Queen v Dinsdale (2000) 202 CLR 321
PARTIES: Andrew Stephen WAKEFIELD - Applicant REGINA - Respondent/Crown
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2008/9969
COUNSEL: W Hunt - Applicant P Leask - Respondent/Crown
SOLICITORS: S O'Connor, Legal Aid Commission - Applicant S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent/Crown
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/11/0605
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