R v Nobile

The appellant, Mr Nobile, appealed against his sentences following his convictions on two presentments. The first presentment contained eight counts including multiple counts of burglary, obtaining property by deception, theft, aggravated burglary, attempted burglary, and handling stolen goods. The second presentment contained multiple counts including reckless conduct endangering life, using a firearm to resist arrest, kidnapping, using a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence, recklessly causing injury, common assault, and other related offences. The appellant submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that the judge had erred in the application of the principle of totality and in the cumulation of sentences, and that the prospects of rehabilitation were bleak. The appellant submitted that the total sentence of twelve years with a non-parole period of nine years was “crushing”.

The primary issue for the court to determine was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. A secondary issue was whether the trial judge erred in his application of the principle of totality and in the cumulation of sentences. The court was also required to consider whether the prospects of rehabilitation were bleak and whether the sentence was “crushing”.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, nor had the trial judge erred in his application of the principle of totality or in the cumulation of sentences. The court found that the appellant’s offending was serious and violent in nature, and that the sentence was not disproportionate to the offending. The court also found that the prospects of rehabilitation were bleak, but held that this did not render the sentence manifestly excessive. The court rejected the appellant’s submission that the sentence was “crushing”, and dismissed the appeal.