OK v R

[2016] NSWCCA 318

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal22 December 2016

Ratio Decidendi

A court of criminal appeal may not substitute its own opinion for that of the sentencing judge merely because the appellate court would have exercised its discretion in a manner different from the manner in which the sentencing judge exercised his or her discretion. This is basic.

Quick Take

An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence merely because it would have imposed a lesser sentence; the sentence must be shown to be unreasonable or plainly unjust. The cognitive impairment and emotional immaturity of a juvenile offender, while relevant to moral culpability and rehabilitation, do not necessarily render a substantial sentence for serious armed robbery offences manifestly excessive where the sentencing judge has taken those matters into account.

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 court of criminal appeal may not substitute its own opinion for that of the sentencing judge merely because the appellate court would have exercised its discretion in a manner different from the manner in which the sentencing judge exercised his or her discretion. This is basic.
02
03
04

+5 more principles

Start free trial

Free trial — no card required

Case Details

Citation[2016] NSWCCA 318

CourtNSWCCA

JurisdictionNsw

Decision Date22 December 2016

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Start free trial

No card · cancel anytime

Judgment

Authorities Cited14›

Cases considered by OK v R

Referred to (14)

OK v R [2016] NSWCCA 318 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] HCA 23 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51

Subsequent Judicial Consideration3›

Cases that have considered OK v R

Referred to (3)

R v PB [2008] NSWCCA 109 Paul Campbell v R [2018] NSWCCA 87 OK v R [2016] NSWCCA 318

Judicial Consideration (Chronological)

R v PB [2008] NSWCCA 109Referred to

Paul Campbell v R [2018] NSWCCA 87Referred to

OK v R [2016] NSWCCA 318Referred 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.

OK v R at [30]

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.

OK v R at [37]