R v Mendoza-Torrico [1999] NSWCCA 413

R v Mendoza-Torrico [1999] NSWCCA 413

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge had not overlooked any material consideration and the sentences, including the four-year sentence with a two-year minimum term for the s.66 A Crimes Act offence against a child under 10 by a person in a position of trust, were not manifestly excessive and fell within the range of a sound exercise of sentencing discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave granted to appeal; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse With a Child Under 10' 'acts of Indecency With a Child Under 10' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'mitigating Factors' 'child Sexual Assault' 'judicial Commission Sentencing Statistics']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Intercourse With a Child Under 10' 'acts of Indecency With a Child Under 10' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'mitigating Factors' 'child Sexual Assault' 'judicial Commission Sentencing Statistics']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account material mitigating considerations including guilty pleas, voluntary attendance at police, cooperation, contrition, lack of prior convictions, rehabilitation steps and prospects, and low risk of reoffending.' 'Whether the sentences, particularly the sentence for sexual intercourse with a child under 10, were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether Judicial Commission sentencing statistics assisted in assessing the range of a sound sentencing discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge had not overlooked any material consideration and the sentences, including the four-year sentence with a two-year minimum term for the s.66 A Crimes Act offence against a child under 10 by a person in a position of trust, were not manifestly excessive and fell within the range of a sound exercise of sentencing discretion.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to appeal; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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