Bravo v R [2015] NSWCCA 302

Bravo v R [2015] NSWCCA 302

The sentencing judge made errors by attributing ejaculation from count 7 to count 6, by specifying maximum-penalty indicative sentences for counts 7 and 13 when the offences were not in the worst category, and by committing Muldrock error in relation to count 6. However, having exercised the sentencing discretion afresh, the Court assessed the totality of the applicant's criminality and concluded that the appropriate aggregate sentence was no less than the 22-year term with a 16-year non-parole period imposed at first instance. No lesser sentence was warranted, so the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Appeal From District Court Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['child Sexual Assault Offences' 'aggregate Sentence' 'indicative Sentences' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'muldrock Error' 'totality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['child Sexual Assault Offences' 'aggregate Sentence' 'indicative Sentences' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'muldrock Error' 'totality']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Appeal From District Court Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in specifying indicative sentences for counts 1 and 2 because the offences were said not to warrant custody if viewed alone.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erroneously attributed ejaculation from count 7 to count 6 and thereby affected the assessment of count 6.' 'Whether the sentencing judge gave the standard non-parole period determinative significance contrary to Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120.' 'Whether indicative sentences for counts 7 and 13 were erroneously fixed at the maximum penalty although the offences were not in the worst category.' 'Whether, after error was established, some other sentence was warranted in law.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge made errors by attributing ejaculation from count 7 to count 6, by specifying maximum-penalty indicative sentences for counts 7 and 13 when the offences were not in the worst category, and by committing Muldrock error in relation to count 6. However, having exercised the sentencing discretion afresh, the Court assessed the totality of the applicant's criminality and concluded that the appropriate aggregate sentence was no less than the 22-year term with a 16-year non-parole period imposed at first instance. No lesser sentence was warranted, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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