Thurlow v R

In the case of Thurlow v R, the applicant, Thurlow, appealed against his conviction and sentence. Thurlow had been found guilty of two counts of perverting the course of justice. At the sentencing phase, Thurlow suggested that the matter could be appropriately dealt with by the imposition of an Intensive Correction Order. However, the sentencing judge determined that the objective seriousness of the offending warranted a sentence of full-time custody. Thurlow appealed the decision, arguing that the sentencing judge erred in failing to appropriately consider section 66(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

The court considered whether the sentencing judge erred in not appropriately considering section 66(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). This section provides that a court must not impose a custodial sentence unless it is satisfied that the circumstances of the case are such that a non-custodial sentence would be inadequate. The court noted that the sentencing judge had made findings that the only appropriate sentence was one of full-time custody and that there was no error in this conclusion. The court found that once the sentencing judge had determined that the only appropriate sentence was one of full-time custody, no further decision was to be made.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted. The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in concluding that the only appropriate sentence was one of full-time custody. The court determined that the objective seriousness of the offending warranted a sentence of this nature, and that there was no error in the sentencing judge's decision. The court also found that the applicant's argument that the sentencing judge had failed to appropriately consider section 66(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) was without merit. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the applicant remained unchanged.