Main Page Sitemap

Sentence reduction for guilty plea

sentence reduction for guilty plea

(iii) Caution needs to be exercised in using sentencing statistics, but they may be of assistance in ensuring consistency in sentencing.
A suspended sentence cannot be backdated although pre-sentence custody can be taken into account: Pulitano v Regina 2010 nswcca.
In such a harm reduction alcohol worksheets case, the Court is not to impose a non-parole period.
The utilitarian discount does not take into account the strength of the prosecution case: Sutton 2004 nswcca 225.
In Regina v McIvor 2010 nswcca 7 Howie J said that even though he thought that the range of sentences for concours policier municipal 2019 offences for multiple armed robberies was inadequate, the offender was entitled to be sentenced in accordance with the actual range of sentences being imposed.As a result of the application.For the first time, there is a statutory obligation on every court to have regard to this guideline in a relevant case and to give reasons when imposing a sentence outside the range identified.Amount of the discount for the utilitarian value of a plea Where there is a plea of guilty in the Local Court, or an offer of a plea which was not accepted until later, the Court should apply a discount of 25 for the utilitarian.In sentencing children general deterrence and personal punishment must give way to rehabilitation: Smith (1964) Crim LR 70, Ford (unreported 22/3/88 GDP (1991) 53 A Crim 112, XYJ (1992) PD 133, and KT v Regina 2008 nswcca 51 esp at paras 22.(2) In an ordinary case of an offence of high range PCA: (i) an order under s 10 of the Sentencing Ac t will rarely be appropriate; (iii) a conviction cannot be avoided only because the offender has attended, or will attend, a driver's education.13 and 14 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.(b) Objective Features The general approach to sentencing The 'objective factors' are generally regarded as being the acts of the accused constituting the offence and the state of mind of the accused which accompanied those acts.

The guideline judgment is for a late plea where there would only be a 10 discount for the plea: Hemsley 2004 nswcca 228 at para.
The judge is required to make an assessment of the objective gravity of each offence: Franklin v Regina 2016 nswcca 319 esp at para.
The question of whether the accused is a drug addict is a matter of mitigation where the onus of proof is on the balance of probabilities: Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270, Rehabilitative factors may suffice: Hall (11/6/91, u/r).
The approach taken in Regina v Gil Raz and Regina v Bourchas is to be preferred.In ZZ v Regina 2013 nswcca 83 it was said that the fact that the offender was intoxicated will only rarely mitigate the offence, especially in matters of violence (esp at para 110).The court has a discretion not to order the parent or guardian to pay the surcharge on behalf of the child.It is not necessary for the sentencing judge to indicate the discount for the aggregated sentence: PG v Regina 2017 nswcca 179 per Button and N Adams JJ, contra Basten.Break and Enter The fact that the offender broke and entered with intent to steal, rather than commit an offence such as sexual assault or violence, is relevant to an assessment of the objective gravity of the offence: Cohen v Regina 2011 nswcca 165 esp.