Regina v Roger SLATER [2003] NSWCCA 178

Regina v Roger SLATER [2003] NSWCCA 178

The sentencing judge made no appellable error: he accepted the need to sentence consistently with sentencing policy at the time of offending, properly dealt with the lack of reliable historical statistics by considering objective seriousness and the then-applicable maximum penalties, expressly considered remissions, substantively complied with Pearce, gave appropriate limited weight to delay in reporting in the context of intrafamilial sexual abuse, considered the applicant's own abuse and other mitigating factors, and did not rely on an uncharged aggravating circumstance. The total sentence was available in the exercise of the sentencing discretion, although possibly at the high end of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['child Sexual Offences' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'historical Sentencing Practice' 'delay in Reporting Offences' 'abolition of Remissions' 'totality' 'concurrency and Cumulation' 'breach of Trust']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['child Sexual Offences' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'historical Sentencing Practice' 'delay in Reporting Offences' 'abolition of Remissions' 'totality' 'concurrency and Cumulation' 'breach of Trust']

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 Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to adequately take into account established sentencing practice and range at the time of commission of the offences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly take into account the abolition of remissions under the Sentencing Act 1989.' 'Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the method of sentencing described in Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610.' 'Whether delay in reporting the offences required a reduction in sentence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account that the applicant was himself a victim of sexual abuse.' 'Whether the sentences were excessive having regard to objective and subjective features and historical sentencing conditions.' 'Whether the sentencing judge wrongly relied on an aggravating circumstance contrary to De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge made no appellable error: he accepted the need to sentence consistently with sentencing policy at the time of offending, properly dealt with the lack of reliable historical statistics by considering objective seriousness and the then-applicable maximum penalties, expressly considered remissions, substantively complied with Pearce, gave appropriate limited weight to delay in reporting in the context of intrafamilial sexual abuse, considered the applicant's own abuse and other mitigating factors, and did not rely on an uncharged aggravating circumstance. The total sentence was available in the exercise of the sentencing discretion, although possibly at the high end of...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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