NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Shine v R [2016] NSWCCA 149 Hearing dates: 15 June 2016 Date of orders: 03 August 2016 Decision date: 03 August 2016 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Davies J at [108]; R S Hulme AJ at [115] Decision: Grant the applicant leave to appeal. Allow the appeal. Quash the sentence imposed on the applicant and in lieu thereof order that the applicant be sentenced to a non-parole period of 5 years, commencing on 19 April 2014 and a balance of term of 4 years. The earliest date the applicant will be eligible for release to parole is 18 April 2019. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentencing – delay in entering guilty plea – whether error in calculating utilitarian discount
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentencing – mental illness – whether error in failing to provide reasons for rejecting conclusion of psychiatrist – whether failure to consider effect of mental illness on moral culpability – whether failure to consider effect of mental illness on incarceration – whether failure to consider prospects of rehabilitation
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentencing – whether manifestly excessive Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 27 Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(3)(h) Cases Cited: Carney v R [2008] NSWCCA 277 Carroll v R [2012] NSWCCA 118 Dang v R [2013] NSWCCA 246 Elturk v R [2014] NSWCCA 61; 239 A Crim R 584 Engert v R (1994) 84 A Crim R 67 Haines v R [2016] NSWCCA 90 Kentwell v R [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 60 McLaren v R [2012] NSWCCA 284 Millwood v R [2012] NSWCCA 2 Nguyen v R [2008] NSWCCA 280 Piciollo v R [2011] NSWCCA 180 R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; 195 A Crim R 1 R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 R v Nicholson [2010] NSWCCA 80 R v Pham [2005] NSWCCA 314 R v Stambolis [2006] NSWCCA 56; 160 A Crim R 510 R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 Sanchet v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2006] NSWCCA 291 TU v R [2014] NSWCCA 155 Turner v R [2011] NSWCCA 189 Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1987] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465 Category: Sentence Parties: Stephen Shine (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Dr J Renwick / M Kalyk (Applicant) H Baker (Respondent)
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