R v JFR [2002] NSWCCA 9

R v JFR [2002] NSWCCA 9

The Court held that the sentencing judge appropriately dealt with the applicant's subjective circumstances and had not been shown to have improperly used the victim impact statements. Given the serious, systematic sexual assaults by the applicant on his young daughters over more than three years, the aggregate sentence of two years and seven months with a non-parole period of one year and seven months did not justify the positive conclusion required by s6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 that some lesser sentence was warranted in law and should have been passed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences of Imprisonment in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['indecent Assault' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'delay Between Offence and Conviction' 'sentencing Standards at Time of Offence' 'criminal Appeal Act Statutory Trigger for Resentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['indecent Assault' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'delay Between Offence and Conviction' 'sentencing Standards at Time of Offence' 'criminal Appeal Act Statutory Trigger for Resentencing']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for six counts of indecent assault were unduly harsh or severe.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing full-time custodial sentences and ordering cumulation.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in reasoning that the absence of further offending was partly due to lack of opportunity within the applicant's family and possible diminution of sex drive." "Whether adequate weight was given to contrition, prior good character, guilty pleas, delay, staleness of the offences, and hardship from imprisonment at the applicant's age." 'Whether the Court should interfere with sentence under s6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the sentencing judge appropriately dealt with the applicant's subjective circumstances and had not been shown to have improperly used the victim impact statements. Given the serious, systematic sexual assaults by the applicant on his young daughters over more than three years, the aggregate sentence of two years and seven months with a non-parole period of one year and seven months did not justify the positive conclusion required by s6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 that some lesser sentence was warranted in law and should have been passed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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