R v Parsons

[2019] SASCFC 43

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing procedure
4. › Credit for pre-sentence custody
5. › Whether sentencing judge required to reduce non-parole period by time spent in custody and on home detention bail
6. › Whether failure to deduct from non-parole period constitutes error
7. › Sentencing Act 2017 (SA), s 44
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing procedure
4. › Non-parole period
5. › Relationship between head sentence and non-parole period
6. › Whether non-parole period of 56.25 percent of head sentence was appropriate
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing procedure
4. › Home detention bail
5. › Allowance for time spent on home detention bail
6. › Discretion of sentencing judge
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Grounds for interference
5. › Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate
6. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive for aggravated causing harm with intent and aggravated assault

Quick Take

A sentencing judge who reduces the head sentence for pre-sentence custody and then fixes the non-parole period by reference to the reduced head sentence does not err, provided the non-parole period demonstrates that time served was not overlooked. Non-parole periods generally fall between 50 and 60 percent of the head sentence, with periods outside this range reflecting adverse or favourable circumstances.

Case Details

Citation[2019] SASCFC 43

CourtSASCFC

JurisdictionSouth Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on2

2014Kentwell v The QueenHCA 37
R v MalakoutiSASCFC 115
R v DevriesSASCFC 101
R v PalmerSASCFC 34

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in