R v AD [2020] NSWCCA 275

R v AD [2020] NSWCCA 275

The sentencing discretion miscarried because insufficient weight was given to the objective seriousness of the offences, the impact on victims, aggravating factors such as position of trust and violence, and excessive concurrency was allowed. The aggregate sentence did not adequately reflect the criminality, resulting in manifest inadequacy. The residual discretion not to intervene should not be exercised; the respondent should be re-sentenced to a longer term reflecting the seriousness and impact.

Parties
Applicant Crown: Regina; Respondent: AD
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Judgment on Appeal and Re Sentencing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; original sentence quashed; respondent re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
Crown Appeal Against Sentence, Child Sexual Offences, Manifest Inadequacy, Sentencing Principles, Totality Principle, Victim Impact, History Offences
Criminal Law Crown Appeal Against Sentence Child Sexual Offences Manifest Inadequacy Sentencing Principles Totality Principle Victim Impact History Offences

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 3 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Applicant Crown

AD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Judgment on Appeal and Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the aggregate sentence imposed manifestly inadequate?
  2. 2 Did the sentencing judge fail to adequately reflect objective seriousness, impact on victims, and aggravating factors?
  3. 3 Should the residual discretion be exercised to leave the sentence standing?

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing discretion miscarried because insufficient weight was given to the objective seriousness of the offences, the impact on victims, aggravating factors such as position of trust and violence, and excessive concurrency was allowed. The aggregate sentence did not adequately reflect the criminality, resulting in manifest inadequacy. The residual discretion not to intervene should not be exercised; the respondent should be re-sentenced to a longer term reflecting the seriousness and impact.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; original sentence quashed; respondent re-sentenced.

Orders

  • The sentence imposed by Judge Flannery SC on 15 May 2020 is quashed.
  • In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years, commencing 22 November 2017 and expiring 21 November 2027, with a balance of term of 5 years expiring 21 November 2032.