NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: BT v R [2012] NSWCCA 276 Hearing dates: 1 November 2012 Decision date: 14 December 2012 Before: Basten JA at [1]; Adams J at [45]; RA Hulme J at [80] Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal. (2) Dismiss the appeal. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - non-parole period - offender serving prior sentence of imprisonment when second sentence of imprisonment imposed - second sentence fully accumulated on first sentence - special circumstances found and statutory ratio of balance of term to non-parole period departed from - ratio of balance of term to overall non-parole period reduced by accumulation of sentences - whether error in not adjusting effective non-parole period - Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - sentencing young persons - armed robbery - offender under 18 years of age when offences committed - offender dealt with according to law - whether sentencing judge failed to consider dealing with offender under Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), Part 3, Division 4 - whether sentencing judge thought issue open
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - procedural fairness - armed robbery - whether sentencing judge imposed a greater sentence than indicated during hearing - whether judge's statements could be understood as an indication of intention so as to deprive offender of opportunity to make submissions Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 15A, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25: Pt 2, Div 4; Pt 3, Div 4 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44 Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [1990] HCA 18; 169 CLR 525 Caristo v R [2011] NSWCCA 7 CTM v R [2007] NSWCCA 131; 171 A Crim R 371 Deakin v The Queen [1984] HCA 31; 58 ALJR 367 Flynn v R [2010] NSWCCA 171 Hejazi v R [2009] NSWCCA 282 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45, 242 CLR 520 Neal v The Queen [1982] HCA 55; 149 CLR 305 Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions (1992) 28 NSWLR 282 Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; 131 CLR 623 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Keen [2004] NSWCCA 86 R v Moffitt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114 R v Simpson (1992) 61 A Crim R 58 R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225 Regina v CVH [2003] NSWCCA 237 Regina v LWP [2003] NSWCCA 215 Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; 204 CLR 82 Russell v R [2010] NSWCCA 248 Wakefield v R [2010] NSWCCA 12 Category: Principal judgment Parties: BT (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel:
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