Regina v Clarke [2001] NSWCCA 223 — BarristerAI

Regina v Clarke

[2001] NSWCCA 223

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

Ratio Decidendi

A judge sentencing an offender for more than one offence must fix an appropriate sentence for each offence and then consider questions of cumulation or concurrence, as well as questions of totality

Judges

Dowd J, Smart AJ, Einfeld AJ, Laurence J

Quick Take

Where cumulative sentences are imposed for separate drug offences, the principle of totality may require reduction of individual sentences even where each is within the permissible range, if the aggregate is excessive. A Commonwealth sentence of 3 years that does not address s 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) should be corrected on appeal by the court declining to make a recognizance release order. A sentencing judge is not required to quantify the discount for a plea of guilty.

Headnote

No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.

Generate the headnote

Free trial · no card required

Linked Principles

Legal principles extracted from this case

01A judge sentencing an offender for more than one offence must fix an appropriate sentence for each offence and then consider questions of cumulation or concurrence, as well as questions of totality
02
03
04

+2 more principles

Start free trial

Free trial — no card required

Case Details

Citation[2001] NSWCCA 223

CourtNSWCCA

JurisdictionNsw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Start free trial

No card · cancel anytime

Judgment

Judges

Dowd J · Smart AJ · Einfeld AJ · Laurence J

Authorities Cited4›

Cases considered by Regina v Clarke

Referred to (4)

R v THOMSON; R v HOULTON [2000] NSWCCA 309 R v Wong & Leung [1999] NSWCCA 420 Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57(1982) 2 NSWLR 104

Subsequent Judicial Consideration2›

Cases that have considered Regina v Clarke

Referred to (2)

R v Man Kong Ho [2002] NSWCCA 379 R v Aem; R v Kem; R v MM [2002] NSWCCA 58

Judicial Consideration (Chronological)

R v Man Kong Ho [2002] NSWCCA 379Referred to

R v Aem; R v Kem; R v MM [2002] NSWCCA 58Referred to

A court exercising federal jurisdiction may grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain foreign proceedings only where the continuation of those proceedings would be vexatious or oppressive and where the balance of convenience favours the grant of relief

A court exercising federal jurisdiction may grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain foreign proceedings only where the continuation of those proceedings would be vexatious or oppressive and where the balance of convenience favours the grant of relief.

Regina v Clarke at [30]

On an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Wallaroo-Yorke rule for statutory demands requires the applicant to identify with specificity the offsetting claim relied upon, supported by evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine triable issue

On an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Wallaroo-Yorke rule for statutory demands requires the applicant to identify with specificity the offsetting claim relied upon, supported by evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine triable issue.

Regina v Clarke at [37]

Ratio Decidendi

Judges

Quick Take

Headnote

Linked Principles

Case Details

Built by Barristers,For Australian Law.

Judgment

Authorities Cited4›

Subsequent Judicial Consideration2›

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.