AH v R [2015] NSWCCA 51

AH v R [2015] NSWCCA 51

The sentencing judge erred in applying s 21A(5A) because the applicant's relationship with the victim's mother and the trust it engendered created the opportunity for offending, but his good character was not shown to have assisted commission of the offences. However, the offences were objectively very serious, involved a young victim, repeated offending over 14 to 15 months and a gross breach of trust, and the applicant's favourable subjective case did not make the aggregate sentence manifestly excessive. No lesser sentence was warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Sentence Imposed on 12 December 2013
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['child Sexual Offences' 'good Character as a Mitigating Factor' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, S 21 A(5 A)' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['child Sexual Offences' 'good Character as a Mitigating Factor' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, S 21 A(5 A)' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate 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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Sentence Imposed on 12 December 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant's good character was of assistance to him in the commission of the offences under s 21A(5A) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999." "Whether the objective gravity of the offences and the applicant's subjective case made the aggregate sentence manifestly excessive." 'Whether, after error was established, a lesser sentence was warranted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in applying s 21A(5A) because the applicant's relationship with the victim's mother and the trust it engendered created the opportunity for offending, but his good character was not shown to have assisted commission of the offences. However, the offences were objectively very serious, involved a young victim, repeated offending over 14 to 15 months and a gross breach of trust, and the applicant's favourable subjective case did not make the aggregate sentence manifestly excessive. No lesser sentence was warranted.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

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