BT v R [2010] NSWCCA 267

BT v R [2010] NSWCCA 267

The sentencing judge erred in treating offences as representative of substantially more occasions than the evidence established, failed to properly consider relevant factors in assessing objective seriousness of the offences, and imposed manifestly excessive sentences given both objective and subjective circumstances; appellate intervention was warranted to set aside the sentences and re-sentence.

Parties
Applicant: BT; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences quashed; new sentences imposed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Assessment of Objective Seriousness, Mental Illness and Sentencing, Manifestly Excessive Sentences
Criminal Law Sentencing Sexual Offences Assessment of Objective Seriousness Mental Illness and Sentencing Manifestly Excessive Sentences

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BT

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the offences were representative of 'many other occasions';
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in failing to take adequately into account the applicant's mental illness;
  3. 3 Whether the objective seriousness of the offences was correctly assessed;

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in treating offences as representative of substantially more occasions than the evidence established, failed to properly consider relevant factors in assessing objective seriousness of the offences, and imposed manifestly excessive sentences given both objective and subjective circumstances; appellate intervention was warranted to set aside the sentences and re-sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences quashed; new sentences imposed.

Orders

  • Quash the sentences imposed by Finnane DCJ on the Applicant.
  • In respect of each of the offences of assault accompanied by an act of indecency, sentence the Applicant to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 2 years commencing on 30 October 2009 together with a further term of 1 year.