BB v R [2017] NSWCCA 189

BB v R [2017] NSWCCA 189

The appeal failed because no House v The King error was shown in the sentencing judge's treatment of accumulation, concurrency and totality; the driving offences were unrelated and different in nature and time, and the sentencing judge expressly considered totality. The sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the premeditated offending in the victim's home and bedroom at night, the applicant's persistence and escalating force, his prior not dissimilar offending, and the fact that the sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness and adjustment for special circumstances were generous. Sentencing statistics and the comparison cases did not demonstrate that...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['break and Enter and Commit a Serious Indictable Offence in Circumstances of Aggravation' 'indecent Assault' 'accumulation and Concurrency' 'totality' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing Statistics' 'standard Non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['break and Enter and Commit a Serious Indictable Offence in Circumstances of Aggravation' 'indecent Assault' 'accumulation and Concurrency' 'totality' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing Statistics' 'standard Non Parole Period']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge breached the principle of totality by allowing inadequate concurrency between the sentence for the subject offence and existing sentences for driving offences.' 'Whether the sentence imposed for the offence contrary to s. 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether sentencing statistics and comparison with sentences in Andrews v R [2011] NSWCCA 24 and Smith v R [2013] NSWCCA 209 demonstrated manifest excess.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because no House v The King error was shown in the sentencing judge's treatment of accumulation, concurrency and totality; the driving offences were unrelated and different in nature and time, and the sentencing judge expressly considered totality. The sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the premeditated offending in the victim's home and bedroom at night, the applicant's persistence and escalating force, his prior not dissimilar offending, and the fact that the sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness and adjustment for special circumstances were generous. Sentencing statistics and the comparison cases did not demonstrate that...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']