Regina v Cross

[2002] NSWCCA 172

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Error in sentencing
4. › Sentence imposed for wrong offence
5. › Attempted robbery sentenced as completed robbery
6. › Whether fundamental error in sentencing process
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Guideline judgments
4. › Application of guideline judgment for different offence
5. › Whether guideline for completed robbery applicable to attempted robbery
6. › R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Non-parole period
4. › Enlargement of sentence term for purposes of extended parole
5. › Whether permissible to increase head sentence to allow longer parole supervision
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating factors
4. › Drug addiction
5. › Rehabilitation in custody
6. › Special circumstances
7. › Departure from statutory ratio of non-parole period to sentence

Quick Take

A sentencing judge who sentences for a completed offence when the offender has pleaded guilty only to an attempt commits a fundamental error that is not saved by s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. Guideline judgments for completed offences (such as R v Henry for armed robbery) cannot be applied as the datum for sentencing for the corresponding attempted offence. It is impermissible to enlarge the head sentence for the purpose of allowing an extended period on parole.