Adam Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76

Adam Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76

The sentencing judge erred by treating the fact that the offences comprised a series of acts aimed at self-sexual gratification as aggravating, contrary to established principle and resulting in double counting. The failure to properly weigh multiple findings in the applicant's favour and the imposition of sentences that were not consistent with the established range rendered the sentences manifestly excessive. Orders were made re-sentencing the applicant accordingly.

Parties
Applicant: Adam Jolly; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed, applicant resentenced
Legal Topics
Objective Seriousness, Manifest Excess, Double Counting, Special Circumstances, Consistency in Sentencing
Criminal Law Sentencing Objective Seriousness Manifest Excess Double Counting Special Circumstances Consistency in Sentencing

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Jolly

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing judge erred in finding that the objective seriousness of the offences was aggravated by a series of acts aimed at self-sexual gratification
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in determining the objective seriousness of the offending
  3. 3 Whether sentences were manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by treating the fact that the offences comprised a series of acts aimed at self-sexual gratification as aggravating, contrary to established principle and resulting in double counting. The failure to properly weigh multiple findings in the applicant's favour and the imposition of sentences that were not consistent with the established range rendered the sentences manifestly excessive. Orders were made re-sentencing the applicant accordingly.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, applicant resentenced

Orders

  • leave to appeal granted
  • appeal allowed