CR v R [2020] NSWCCA 289

CR v R [2020] NSWCCA 289

The sentencing judge erred by treating counts 2 and 3 as offences attracting a standard non-parole period when the offending occurred between 2010 and 2013, before the amendments commencing on 29 June 2015 applied. That error involved taking into account an irrelevant consideration and required the Court to grant leave, allow the appeal, quash the District Court sentence, and re-sentence the applicant. On re-sentence, giving paramount importance to general deterrence and denunciation, and considering the seriousness of the child abuse material offending, breach of trust, guilty pleas, guarded rehabilitation prospects, mental state, and special circumstances, an aggregate sentence of 6...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales; Appeal Allowed and Applicant Re Sentenced
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 6 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 1 month.
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'child Abuse Material Offences' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'aggregate Sentence' 're Sentencing' 'general Deterrence and Denunciation' 'special Circumstances' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sentence Appeal' 'child Abuse Material Offences' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'aggregate Sentence' 're Sentencing' 'general Deterrence and Denunciation' 'special Circumstances' 'guilty Plea Discount']

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 Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales; Appeal Allowed and Applicant Re Sentenced

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by applying a standard non-parole period to offences contrary to s 91G(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) committed before the relevant amendments came into force.' 'Whether the applicant should be re-sentenced in the fresh exercise of the sentencing discretion.' "What sentence was appropriate having regard to the objective seriousness of the child abuse material offences and the applicant's subjective circumstances."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by treating counts 2 and 3 as offences attracting a standard non-parole period when the offending occurred between 2010 and 2013, before the amendments commencing on 29 June 2015 applied. That error involved taking into account an irrelevant consideration and required the Court to grant leave, allow the appeal, quash the District Court sentence, and re-sentence the applicant. On re-sentence, giving paramount importance to general deterrence and denunciation, and considering the seriousness of the child abuse material offending, breach of trust, guilty pleas, guarded rehabilitation prospects, mental state, and special circumstances, an aggregate sentence of 6...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 6 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 1 month.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Allow the appeal.' 'Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court of NSW.' 'In lieu thereof, sentence the applicant to imprisonment for 6 years and 3 months commencing on 9 March 2017 and expiring on 8 June 2023.' 'Specify a non-parole period of 4 years and 1 month imprisonment...