Whiteman v R [2023] NSWCCA 58

Whiteman v R [2023] NSWCCA 58

Although the Crown properly conceded that the sentencing judge erred in finding that some offending continued after the applicant's initial arrest, resentencing on the correct factual basis did not warrant any lesser sentence. The offending involved very high criminality across 38 sexual offences against 22 children over about 15 years, was planned, manipulative, predatory and persistent, caused serious harm, and the applicant showed limited true remorse, poor insight and poor rehabilitation prospects. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Resentencing After Conceded Factual Error
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'child Sexual Offences' 'use of Carriage Service Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'house Error' 'resentencing' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'general Deterrence' 'remorse and Rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sentence Appeal' 'child Sexual Offences' 'use of Carriage Service Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'house Error' 'resentencing' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'general Deterrence' 'remorse and Rehabilitation']

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 Sentence; Resentencing After Conceded Factual Error

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the offending continued after the applicant's initial arrest." 'Whether, after correcting that error and resentencing, a lesser sentence was warranted in law.' 'Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to assess the objective criminality of counts.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Crown properly conceded that the sentencing judge erred in finding that some offending continued after the applicant's initial arrest, resentencing on the correct factual basis did not warrant any lesser sentence. The offending involved very high criminality across 38 sexual offences against 22 children over about 15 years, was planned, manipulative, predatory and persistent, caused serious harm, and the applicant showed limited true remorse, poor insight and poor rehabilitation prospects. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal dismissed.']