By -

Key decisions

  • Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
  • Fisher v R; R v Fisher [2021] NSWCCA 91

Additional content – only available on LSJ Online

  • Attorney-General’s Application pursuant to s 108 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW): Re Robert Burton (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWCCA 87

Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97

Sentencing – intensive correction orders – backdating vs reducing the sentence

In this decision, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has endorsed a practice of reducing, rather than backdating, sentences of imprisonment when there is pre-sentence custody and an Intensive Correction Order (‘ICO’) is ultimately imposed.

The applicant was a self-employed mechanic. In addition to offering the usual auto repair services on his premises, it appears he was also buying and selling drugs (GBL and ice) from his workshop. He pleaded guilty to one count of ongoing supply (involving 13 individual transactions) and one of operating drug premises. He was sentenced to imprisonment for three years, with a non-parole period of two years. In sentencing the applicant, the sentencing judge recorded that the offence had a maximum penalty of 20 years (which was correct) and a standard non-parole period of five years (which wasn’t). On the appeal, the Crown conceded the error; that meant the CCA had to resentence the applicant. 

The process of resentencing provided the Court (Simpson AJA, Garling J agreeing; N Adams J also agreeing, with some brief additional remarks) with an opportunity to discuss a couple of important topics around the subject of ICO sentencing procedures.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more