BC v R (No 2) [2019] NSWCCA 142

BC v R (No 2) [2019] NSWCCA 142

Because the applicant's convictions on counts 1 to 3 had been quashed while counts 4 to 20 remained, the existing aggregate sentence could not stand. Given the applicant's wish to adduce further evidence on resentencing, the possibility of materially different evidence more than two years after the original sentence, and the parties' positions on remitter, the appropriate course was to quash the sentence and remit the proceedings to the District Court for resentencing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal; Consequential Orders on Remitter and Resentencing / After Conviction Appeal in Which Counts 1 to 3 Were Quashed and the Appeal Was Otherwise Dismissed
Outcome
Sentence quashed and proceedings remitted to the District Court for resentencing.
Legal Topics
['child Sexual Assault Offences' 'aggregate Sentence' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'remitter' 'resentencing']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['child Sexual Assault Offences' 'aggregate Sentence' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'remitter' 'resentencing']

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; Consequential Orders on Remitter and Resentencing / After Conviction Appeal in Which Counts 1 to 3 Were Quashed and the Appeal Was Otherwise Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed after trial should be quashed following the quashing of convictions on counts 1 to 3.' 'Whether the Court should resentence the applicant itself or remit the proceedings to the District Court for resentencing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant's convictions on counts 1 to 3 had been quashed while counts 4 to 20 remained, the existing aggregate sentence could not stand. Given the applicant's wish to adduce further evidence on resentencing, the possibility of materially different evidence more than two years after the original sentence, and the parties' positions on remitter, the appropriate course was to quash the sentence and remit the proceedings to the District Court for resentencing.

Court Disposition

Sentence quashed and proceedings remitted to the District Court for resentencing.

Orders

  • ['Quash the sentence imposed on 18 May 2017.' 'Remit the proceedings to the District Court for the purpose of resentencing the applicant.' 'The matter will be listed for mention in the District Court at Newcastle on Thursday, 18 July 2019.']