Regina v CDH [2002] NSWCCA 103

Regina v CDH [2002] NSWCCA 103

The sentencing judge did not give sufficient allowance for the voluntary admissions made by the applicant, as required by the principle in R v Ellis and affirmed in Ryan v The Queen. The original sentences failed to make it clear that a significant added leniency for the full and frank admissions was provided. The Court also found a reduction in the non-parole period was warranted due to special circumstances, including the applicant serving his sentence on protection and rehabilitation efforts.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Applicant: CDH
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Appeal (application for Leave to Appeal and Re Sentencing)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Sentences varied on appeal as set out in pars 39-43.
Legal Topics
Sentence Appeal, Sexual Offences Against Children, Allowance for Admissions (ellis Principle), Discount for Guilty Plea, Special Circumstances for Non Parole Period
Criminal Law Sentence Appeal Sexual Offences Against Children Allowance for Admissions (ellis Principle) Discount for Guilty Plea Special Circumstances for 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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

CDH

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Appeal (application for Leave to Appeal and Re Sentencing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient allowance was made for admissions to police (Ellis principle)
  2. 2 Whether sentencing judge erred in not finding special circumstances to justify altering the parole period

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not give sufficient allowance for the voluntary admissions made by the applicant, as required by the principle in R v Ellis and affirmed in Ryan v The Queen. The original sentences failed to make it clear that a significant added leniency for the full and frank admissions was provided. The Court also found a reduction in the non-parole period was warranted due to special circumstances, including the applicant serving his sentence on protection and rehabilitation efforts.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Sentences varied on appeal as set out in pars 39-43.

Orders

  • Count 3: head sentence of five years imprisonment from 9 February 2001 to 8 February 2006, with a non-parole period of three years and three months expiring 8 May 2004 (including the Form 1 matter).
  • Count 2: two years imprisonment from 9 February 2001.