Moore v R [2018] NSWCCA 26

Moore v R [2018] NSWCCA 26

Leave to appeal was refused because no error was shown in the sentencing judge's approach. The judge was entitled to give limited weight to the applicant's asserted insight, had considered and given appropriate weight to his psychiatric history including its effect on moral culpability and general deterrence, and the sentences were not shown to be unreasonable, plainly unjust or manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['manifest Excess' 'using a Carriage Service to Procure a Person Under 16 Years of Age to Engage in Sexual Activity' 'possessing Child Abuse Material' 'mental Illness in Sentencing' 'insight and Remorse' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manifest Excess' 'using a Carriage Service to Procure a Person Under 16 Years of Age to Engage in Sexual Activity' 'possessing Child Abuse Material' 'mental Illness in Sentencing' 'insight and Remorse' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence']

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 From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant showed little insight into the consequences of his offending.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave due consideration and weight to the applicant's psychiatric history." "Whether the police investigation and the applicant's manic phase affected the sentencing assessment."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because no error was shown in the sentencing judge's approach. The judge was entitled to give limited weight to the applicant's asserted insight, had considered and given appropriate weight to his psychiatric history including its effect on moral culpability and general deterrence, and the sentences were not shown to be unreasonable, plainly unjust or manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to appeal against sentence.']