NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Kelly v R [2017] NSWCCA 256 Hearing dates: 11 September 2017 Date of orders: 27 October 2017 Decision date: 27 October 2017 Before: Basten JA at [1]; Beech-Jones J at [2] Fagan J at [46] Decision: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused Catchwords: SENTENCING – parity principle – one offender sentenced to 5 years and 11 months with non-parole period of three years and six months for attempted armed robbery – co-offender sentenced to aggregate sentence of nine years and six months with a non-parole period of just over 7 years for common offence and robbery and break and enter offences – applicant claimed a justifiable sense of grievance arising from co- offender's sentence – contended that only small part of co-offender's actual period in custody solely referable to common offence – consideration of Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 – comparison of actual periods in custody a matter to be taken into account but not determinative – comparison of all components of sentence including sentences being served for unrelated offences required – when criminality of two offenders for common and unrelated offending compared no justifiable sense of grievance arises – when applicant's sentence for common offence compared to co-offender's indicative sentence for common offence no justifiable sense of grievance Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, ss 97, 111, 117, 344A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 53A Weapons Prohibition Act 1998, s 7 Cases Cited: Ayik v Regina [2013] NSWCCA 119 Bell v R [2008] NSWCCA 206 El-Helou v R [2014] NSWCCA 209 Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 Kelly v R [2017] NSWCCA 82 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 Tran v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 266 Texts Cited: D A Thomas, Principles of Sentencing, (2nd ed 1979, Heinemann) at 56-57 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jesse Aaron Kelly(Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Pararajasingham (Applicant) B 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