CC v R [2019] NSWCCA 229

CC v R [2019] NSWCCA 229

The aggregate sentence imposed by Neilson DCJ was not unreasonable or plainly unjust. The indicated 2 year sentence for Count 6 was within discretion, and indeed lenient, having regard to the facts, the 14 year maximum penalty, the complainant's detention, fear, and the applicant's use of violence. The complaint about accumulation and totality failed because the applicant's counsel had expressly agreed to the 15 April 2020 commencement date, the offending sentenced by Neilson DCJ was separate from the earlier offending, totality was considered, and the statutory special-circumstances ratio applied to the aggregate sentence actually imposed rather than to a notional combined effective...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence, With Application to Extend Time
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence' 'indicative Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence' 'indicative Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'non Parole Period']

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 Sentence, With Application to Extend Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the indicative sentence of 2 years' imprisonment for Count 6 was excessive and resulted in a manifestly excessive aggregate sentence." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred, or imposed a manifestly excessive aggregate sentence, by accumulating the sentence upon the sentence imposed by Huggett DCJ.' 'Whether the effective sentence structure undermined the findings of special circumstances and the ratio between the non-parole period and head sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The aggregate sentence imposed by Neilson DCJ was not unreasonable or plainly unjust. The indicated 2 year sentence for Count 6 was within discretion, and indeed lenient, having regard to the facts, the 14 year maximum penalty, the complainant's detention, fear, and the applicant's use of violence. The complaint about accumulation and totality failed because the applicant's counsel had expressly agreed to the 15 April 2020 commencement date, the offending sentenced by Neilson DCJ was separate from the earlier offending, totality was considered, and the statutory special-circumstances ratio applied to the aggregate sentence actually imposed rather than to a notional combined effective...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Extend the time for the filing of the notice of application for leave to appeal to 20 June 2019.' 'Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']