Regina v PRITCHARD [1999] NSWCCA 182

Regina v PRITCHARD [1999] NSWCCA 182

The appeal failed because s 30 of the Interpretation Act 1987 preserved liability to punishment for offences committed before repeal of ss 79 and 80 of the Crimes Act 1900, while s 55(2) did not apply because repeal was not a reduction of penalty. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the offending as serious, non-consensual, repeated sexual offending involving abuse of trust against multiple victims, to give little weight to loss of vocation, and to reject parity with Sweeney because he was not a co-offender and the applicant's culpability was greater. The effective sentence of six years was within range.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['buggery' 'assault With Intent to Commit Buggery' 'indecent Assault' 'repeal of Offences and Effect on Sentence' 'form 1 Offences Taken Into Account' 'loss of Vocation' 'parity of Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['buggery' 'assault With Intent to Commit Buggery' 'indecent Assault' 'repeal of Offences and Effect on Sentence' 'form 1 Offences Taken Into Account' 'loss of Vocation' 'parity of Sentence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the repeal of the buggery offence under s 79 of the Crimes Act 1900 affected the sentence that could be imposed for offences committed before repeal.' 'Whether absence of consent could be considered in sentencing for buggery without breaching the De Simoni principle.' "Whether the applicant's loss of vocation as a priest and teacher should substantially reduce sentence." 'Whether the sentence was inconsistent with parity principles by comparison with the sentence imposed on John Sweeney.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because s 30 of the Interpretation Act 1987 preserved liability to punishment for offences committed before repeal of ss 79 and 80 of the Crimes Act 1900, while s 55(2) did not apply because repeal was not a reduction of penalty. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the offending as serious, non-consensual, repeated sexual offending involving abuse of trust against multiple victims, to give little weight to loss of vocation, and to reject parity with Sweeney because he was not a co-offender and the applicant's culpability was greater. The effective sentence of six years was within range.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']