O’Sullivan v R [2019] NSWCCA 261

O’Sullivan v R [2019] NSWCCA 261

Manifest excess was not established because the sentencing judge specifically considered the matters relied on by the applicant, including the objective seriousness of the offences, the applicant's age and health, delay, the 2016 sentence, totality, accumulation, concurrency, the statutory maximum penalty, the absence of a standard non-parole period, and s 25AA. The extent of accumulation was a discretionary matter, and the aggregate sentence reflected the applicant's total criminality, including offending against separate victims over many years in breach of trust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manifest Excess' 'indecent Assault' 'historical Child Sexual Abuse' 'aggregate Sentence' 'totality' 'accumulation and Concurrency' 'current Sentencing Practices for Historical Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manifest Excess' 'indecent Assault' 'historical Child Sexual Abuse' 'aggregate Sentence' 'totality' 'accumulation and Concurrency' 'current Sentencing Practices for Historical Offences']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentence of 8 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years for 14 counts of indecently assaulting a male person was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge adequately applied totality and accumulation having regard to an existing sentence for similar offences.' "Whether the effective sentence was crushing having regard to the applicant's age, health and prior sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Manifest excess was not established because the sentencing judge specifically considered the matters relied on by the applicant, including the objective seriousness of the offences, the applicant's age and health, delay, the 2016 sentence, totality, accumulation, concurrency, the statutory maximum penalty, the absence of a standard non-parole period, and s 25AA. The extent of accumulation was a discretionary matter, and the aggregate sentence reflected the applicant's total criminality, including offending against separate victims over many years in breach of trust.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']