Grange v R [2023] NSWCCA 6

Grange v R [2023] NSWCCA 6

By majority, the Court held that the sentencing judge did not make a positive unsupported finding that the victims had suffered harm, nor did she treat such harm as an aggravating factor inflating objective seriousness. Her assessment rested on matters including the very young age and vulnerability of the victims, the depraved nature of the offending, breach of trust, and general deterrence. Although the sentences were stern, the aggregate sentence for the State offences reflected the totality of the applicant's criminality and was not manifestly excessive. Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentences Imposed in the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed by majority.
Legal Topics
['manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence' 'child Sexual Offences' 'aggravated Indecent Assault' 'sexual Intercourse With a Child Under 10' 'child Abuse Material' 'objective Seriousness' 'victim Harm' 'general Deterrence' 'totality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence' 'child Sexual Offences' 'aggravated Indecent Assault' 'sexual Intercourse With a Child Under 10' 'child Abuse Material' 'objective Seriousness' 'victim Harm' 'general Deterrence' '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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentences Imposed in the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by attributing harm to the child victims without evidentiary support and treating it as increasing objective seriousness.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence of 30 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years and 6 months for the State offences was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective criminality and indicative sentences for the s 61M(2), s 61O(2), s 66A and s 91G(1)(a) offences.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding guarded prospects of rehabilitation and in assessing the applicant's subjective case."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the sentencing judge did not make a positive unsupported finding that the victims had suffered harm, nor did she treat such harm as an aggravating factor inflating objective seriousness. Her assessment rested on matters including the very young age and vulnerability of the victims, the depraved nature of the offending, breach of trust, and general deterrence. Although the sentences were stern, the aggregate sentence for the State offences reflected the totality of the applicant's criminality and was not manifestly excessive. Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed by majority.

Orders

  • ['The applicant be granted leave to appeal.' 'The appeal be dismissed.']