Hardie v Regina; Phillipsen v Regina

[2012] NSWCCA 6

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing process
4. › Alternatives to full-time imprisonment
5. › Whether sentencing judge required to expressly address each step of sentencing process
6. › Whether failure to do so constitutes error
7. › Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 5
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company
4. › Entering or remaining in dwelling with intent
5. › Whether sentences manifestly excessive
6. › Relevance of general deterrence
7. › Relevance of consequences to victim
8. › Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59(2), 114(1)(d)

Quick Take

A sentencing judge is not required to expressly address each step of the R v Zamagias sentencing process where a sentence of full-time imprisonment is so obviously demanded that the procedure can properly be foregone. The risk of error may increase if a judge does not expressly advert to the steps, but there are many cases where the result is sufficiently clear.

Case Details

Citation[2012] NSWCCA 6

CourtNSWCCA

JurisdictionNew South Wales

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.

1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.

Cited by1

2014Michael v RNSWCCA 2

Relies on6

2011Ismael Amado v RNSWCCA 197
2011Dwayne William SMITH v RNSWCCA 209
2006Lovell v R; Dominey v RNSWCCA 222
2002Regina v ThompsonNSWCCA 149
and 2 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in