R v Linardon [2014] NSWCCA 247

R v Linardon [2014] NSWCCA 247

The sentencing judge erred by imposing sentences, especially for the indecent communication offence, that were manifestly inadequate as insufficient regard was paid to the need for general and specific deterrence, and by structuring the sentences such that the overall criminality of multiple distinct offences (State and Commonwealth) was not adequately reflected through appropriate accumulation. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentences, and resentenced the respondent to higher terms appropriately reflecting both the seriousness and totality of the offending.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Crown Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Sentences quashed. Respondent resentenced to terms higher than at first instance for multiple offences.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'deterrence' 'child Pornography Offences' 'totality Principle' 'accumulation of Sentences']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'deterrence' 'child Pornography Offences' 'totality Principle' 'accumulation of 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Crown Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence for the aggravated transmission offence was manifestly inadequate' 'Whether the overall sentences failed to reflect totality and adequate accumulation for separate offending' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to general and specific deterrence']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by imposing sentences, especially for the indecent communication offence, that were manifestly inadequate as insufficient regard was paid to the need for general and specific deterrence, and by structuring the sentences such that the overall criminality of multiple distinct offences (State and Commonwealth) was not adequately reflected through appropriate accumulation. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentences, and resentenced the respondent to higher terms appropriately reflecting both the seriousness and totality of the offending.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Sentences quashed. Respondent resentenced to terms higher than at first instance for multiple offences.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'The sentences imposed by the sentencing judge on 2 August 2013 are quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, sentences imposed: (a) For possession of child abuse material contrary to s 91H of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): fixed term of 2 years imprisonment (25 July 2013 – 24 July 2015). (b) For using a carriage...