Ford v R [2016] NSWCCA 69

Ford v R [2016] NSWCCA 69

The application for an extension of time was refused because each proposed ground of appeal was misconceived or without merit. The sentencing judge's remarks were a proper and moderate denunciation of extremely serious child sexual offending and did not disclose apprehended bias; the judge did not misapply Veen v The Queen (No 2) in considering the applicant's prior convictions and prospects of rehabilitation; and the same total effective sentence as imposed on X did not create a justifiable sense of grievance given the applicant's prior convictions, additional serious offending, and the position taken by his counsel at sentence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal
Outcome
Application for an extension of the time within which to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'apprehended Bias' 'denunciation in Sentencing' 'protection of the Community' 'prior Convictions' 'parity and Disparity' 'child Sexual Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'apprehended Bias' 'denunciation in Sentencing' 'protection of the Community' 'prior Convictions' 'parity and Disparity' 'child Sexual Offences']

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 an Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted for the applicant to appeal against sentence.' "Whether the sentencing judge's remarks about the offending gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying Veen v The Queen (No 2) when considering prior convictions, personal deterrence, punishment and rehabilitation.' 'Whether imposing the same total effective sentence as that imposed on a co-offender gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because each proposed ground of appeal was misconceived or without merit. The sentencing judge's remarks were a proper and moderate denunciation of extremely serious child sexual offending and did not disclose apprehended bias; the judge did not misapply Veen v The Queen (No 2) in considering the applicant's prior convictions and prospects of rehabilitation; and the same total effective sentence as imposed on X did not create a justifiable sense of grievance given the applicant's prior convictions, additional serious offending, and the position taken by his counsel at sentence.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of the time within which to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for an extension of the time within which to bring the appeal refused.']