Banat v R
Case
•
[2020] NSWCCA 321
•15 December 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Banat v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 321
[2020] NSWCCA 321
15 December 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Banat v R, the appellant, Banat, was convicted of various criminal offences and subsequently sentenced by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute pertains to the sentence imposed, specifically the contention that the trial judge failed to consider the period of conditional bail in determining the commencement date of the custodial sentence. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge erred in failing to take into account the period of conditional bail when determining the commencement date of the custodial sentence. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have given credit for the entire period of conditional bail, while the Crown contended that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in considering only one period of conditional bail. The Court of Appeal needed to determine whether the trial judge's approach was in error and, if so, whether it amounted to a manifest excess that warranted an appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge was required to consider the period of conditional bail, it was not an error to take into account only one period of conditional bail when the conditions differed. The Court held that the trial judge had discretion in determining whether to give credit for the entire period of conditional bail, and in this instance, the trial judge had exercised that discretion appropriately. However, the Court did find that the trial judge had erred in determining the commencement date of the custodial sentence. The Court of Appeal held that the error was not so significant as to constitute a manifest excess, and the appeal was allowed only in respect of the commencement date. The remainder of the sentence was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal was allowed in respect of the commencement date of the custodial sentence, which was to be recalculated to reflect credit for the entire period of conditional bail. The remainder of the sentence was to remain unchanged, and the appeal was dismissed in all other respects.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge erred in failing to take into account the period of conditional bail when determining the commencement date of the custodial sentence. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have given credit for the entire period of conditional bail, while the Crown contended that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in considering only one period of conditional bail. The Court of Appeal needed to determine whether the trial judge's approach was in error and, if so, whether it amounted to a manifest excess that warranted an appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge was required to consider the period of conditional bail, it was not an error to take into account only one period of conditional bail when the conditions differed. The Court held that the trial judge had discretion in determining whether to give credit for the entire period of conditional bail, and in this instance, the trial judge had exercised that discretion appropriately. However, the Court did find that the trial judge had erred in determining the commencement date of the custodial sentence. The Court of Appeal held that the error was not so significant as to constitute a manifest excess, and the appeal was allowed only in respect of the commencement date. The remainder of the sentence was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal was allowed in respect of the commencement date of the custodial sentence, which was to be recalculated to reflect credit for the entire period of conditional bail. The remainder of the sentence was to remain unchanged, and the appeal was dismissed in all other respects.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Sentencing
-
Manifest Excess
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Banat v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 321
Most Recent Citation
R v Liavaa; Liavaa v The King [2025] NSWCCA 101
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Stott v The Queen
[2021] ACTCA 18
R v Shiel
[2022] NSWDC 648
R v Dungay
[2021] NSWDC 160
Cases Cited
22
Statutory Material Cited
2
Bland v R
[2014] NSWCCA 82
Frlanov v R
[2018] NSWCCA 267
Hoskins v R
[2016] NSWCCA 157