NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: TAMMER-SPENCE, Jacob v R [2013] NSWCCA 297 Hearing dates: 29/08/2013 Decision date: 28 November 2013 Before: Latham J at [1] Rothman J at [2] Davies J at [69] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal sentence granted; (2) Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - aggregate sentence - young offender - allegation that deterrence was given too much weight as a factor in sentencing - allegations that insufficient weight given to subjective circumstances - manifest excess - discretionary exercise involving intuitive synthesis - retribution may be of less significance for young offender and considerations of rehabilitation of more significance - deterrence may still be a factor - subjective factors taken into account - no error - sentence not manifestly excessive Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; (2010) 201 A Crim R 379 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 78 ALJR 616 KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51; (2008) 182 A Crim R 571 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v AN [2005] NSWCCA 239 R v Elliott [2006] NSWCCA 305; (2006) 68 NSWLR 1 R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451 R v MA [2004] NSWCCA 92; (2004) 145 A Crim R 434 R v Slade [2005] NZCA 19; (2005) 2 NZLR 526 Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jacob Tammer-Spence (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Thangaraj SC / D Barrow (Applicant) S Herbert (Respondent) Solicitors: The Shop Front Youth Legal Centre (Applicant) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number(s): 2011/376851; 2012/22660 Publication restriction: None Decision under appeal Date of Decision: 2012-08-17 00:00:00 Before: Williams DCJ File Number(s): 2011/376851; 2012/22660
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