Sharma v R [2017] NSWCCA 85

Sharma v R [2017] NSWCCA 85

The sentencing judge erred by taking into account, in assessing objective seriousness, the fact that the offending occurred while the applicant was subject to conditional liberty; this constituted House v The King error and required re-exercise of the sentencing discretion. The seriousness of the offences was below the middle of the range, but not by a substantial margin, and an appropriate aggregate sentence was 7 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 5 years.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence allowed. Sentence quashed. New sentence imposed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'objective Seriousness in Sentencing' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing Discretion Re Exercise']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'objective Seriousness in Sentencing' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing Discretion Re Exercise']

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 / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sentencing judge erred in assessing objective seriousness of offences' 'Whether sentencing judge took into account irrelevant considerations' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by taking into account, in assessing objective seriousness, the fact that the offending occurred while the applicant was subject to conditional liberty; this constituted House v The King error and required re-exercise of the sentencing discretion. The seriousness of the offences was below the middle of the range, but not by a substantial margin, and an appropriate aggregate sentence was 7 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 5 years.

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence allowed. Sentence quashed. New sentence imposed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal against sentence.' 'Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 22 April 2016.' 'Sentence the applicant to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 7 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 5 years, commencing 24 July 2015. Non-parole period expiring 23 July 2020...