NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: WC v R [2016] NSWCCA 173 Hearing dates: 27 April 2016 Date of orders: 17 August 2016 Decision date: 17 August 2016 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Campbell J at [2] Natalie Adams J at [79] Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal; (2) Quash the sentence passed in the District Court on 16 February 2015; (3) Re-sentence the applicant to an aggregate term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years and 9 months commencing on 9th November 2011 and expiring on 8th August 2023 with an additional term of 5 years and 3 months commencing on 9th August 2023 and expiring on 8th November 2028; (4) The earliest date upon which the applicant will be eligible for release on parole will be on the expiration of the non-parole period on 8th August 2023. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against sentence –interstate offending – totality principle – assessment of rehabilitation in context of interstate imprisonment CRIMINAL LAW – appeal– appeal against sentence– rejection of expert report as to risk of reoffending by sentencing judge– whether reasons for rejection adequate – where reasons for decision made clear Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59, 61M(2), 61O(1), 61O(1A), 66(2), 66C(2), 78A Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1)(c), s 6(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 3A(d), 22A, 33, 47(2), 53A Cases Cited: Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601 CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9; 89 ALJR 407 Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Limited [1986] HCA 40; 162 CLR 24 R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 R v MAK & MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim 159 R v Pogson [2012] NSWCCA 225; 82 NSWLR 60 R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 Vartzokas v Zanker (1989) 51 SASR 277; 44 A Crim R 243 Category: Principal judgment Parties: WC – Applicant Regina – Respondent Crown Representation: Counsel: S Healy – Applicant N Noman SC – Respondent Crown
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