CC v R [2019] NSWCCA 230
The applicant failed to demonstrate error in the indicative sentences for counts 1–5 or for perverting the course of justice; the sentencing judge appropriately considered the applicant's age at the time of offending and applied relevant statutory principles. The aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive or plainly unjust. Leave to appeal is refused.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 19 December 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence (out of Time)
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- ['sentence Appeal' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'aggregate Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'extension of Time' 'perversion of Justice']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence (out of Time)
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive' "Whether sentences for offences committed as a juvenile adequately reflected applicant's age under Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)" "Whether sentence for perverting the course of justice reflected applicant's level of culpability"]
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to demonstrate error in the indicative sentences for counts 1–5 or for perverting the course of justice; the sentencing judge appropriately considered the applicant's age at the time of offending and applied relevant statutory principles. The aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive or plainly unjust. Leave to appeal is refused.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal refused
Orders
- ['Extend the time for the filing of the notice of application for leave to appeal to 20 June 2019.' 'Leave to appeal is refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment