Starmer v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 27 — BarristerAI

Starmer v Regina

[2008] NSWCCA 27

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

Ratio Decidendi

In order to attract appellate intervention regarding pre-sentence custody, it is necessary to show that relevant error has occurred. The Court has intervened where sentencing proceedings were affected by ambiguity so that it was not clearly demonstrated that appropriate account had been given to service of pre-sentence custody.

Judges

Simpson J, Grove J

Quick Take

While backdating a sentence to account for pre-sentence custody remains the desirable and preferable practice, a sentencing judge does not err by instead adjusting the non-parole period to account for that custody, provided the allowance is clearly demonstrated in the remarks on sentence. Appellate intervention requires a showing that the sentencing proceedings were affected by ambiguity such that appropriate account for pre-sentence custody was not clearly demonstrated.

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

01In order to attract appellate intervention regarding pre-sentence custody, it is necessary to show that relevant error has occurred. The Court has intervened where sentencing proceedings were affected by ambiguity so that it was not clearly demonstrated that appropriate account had been given to service of pre-sentence custody.
02
03
04

+1 more principle

Start free trial

Free trial — no card required

Case Details

Citation[2008] NSWCCA 27

CourtNSWCCA

JurisdictionNsw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Start free trial

No card · cancel anytime

Judgment

Judges

Simpson J · Grove J

Authorities Cited6›

Cases considered by Starmer v Regina

Referred to (6)

Assafiri v R [2007] NSWCCA 159 R v Hall [2005] NSWCCA 217 Regina v Nasher [2005] NSWCCA 238 R v Howard [2001] NSWCCA 309 R v John Edward Viana [2001] NSWCCA 171

Subsequent Judicial Consideration2›

Cases that have considered Starmer v Regina

Referred to (2)

WIGGINS, Daniel Peter v R [2010] NSWCCA 30 Salafia v R [2015] NSWCCA 141

Judicial Consideration (Chronological)

WIGGINS, Daniel Peter v R [2010] NSWCCA 30Referred to

Salafia v R [2015] NSWCCA 141Referred to

The Hindmarsh-Petrie test for vicarious sub-tortfeasor liability requires the principal to have had actual or constructive knowledge of the sub-tortfeasor's propensity to act unlawfully in the course of the engagement, and that the engagement created the occasion for the wrongful conduct

The Hindmarsh-Petrie test for vicarious sub-tortfeasor liability requires the principal to have had actual or constructive knowledge of the sub-tortfeasor's propensity to act unlawfully in the course of the engagement, and that the engagement created the occasion for the wrongful conduct.

Starmer v Regina at [30]

Where a guarantor seeks to set aside a guarantee on the ground of unconscionable conduct by the lender, the guarantor must establish both that they were under a special disadvantage and that the lender knew or ought to have known of that disadvantage

Where a guarantor seeks to set aside a guarantee on the ground of unconscionable conduct by the lender, the guarantor must establish both that they were under a special disadvantage and that the lender knew or ought to have known of that disadvantage.

Starmer v Regina at [37]

Ratio Decidendi

Judges

Quick Take

Headnote

Linked Principles

Case Details

Built by Barristers,For Australian Law.

Judgment

Authorities Cited6›

Subsequent Judicial Consideration2›

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.