Hartley v R [2020] NSWCCA 330
The sentencing judge erred in finding the offence was 'slightly below' the middle of the range of objective seriousness and in finding the applicant had an unabated abnormal sexual disorder without evidence; these errors necessitated resentencing, resulting in reduction of sentence.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 December 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; applicant resentenced
- Legal Topics
- ['appeal Against Sentence' 'assault With Act of Indecency' 'objective Seriousness' 'sentencing Errors' 'manifest Excess']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether sentencing judge erred in finding offence was 'slightly below the middle of the range' of objective seriousness" "Whether sentencing judge erred in finding applicant had an 'abnormal sexual disorder which has not abated'" 'Whether sentence was manifestly excessive']
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge erred in finding the offence was 'slightly below' the middle of the range of objective seriousness and in finding the applicant had an unabated abnormal sexual disorder without evidence; these errors necessitated resentencing, resulting in reduction of sentence.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; applicant resentenced
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal against sentence granted' 'Appeal allowed, sentence set aside' 'Applicant sentenced to imprisonment made up of a non-parole period of 2 years commencing on 24 April 2018 and expiring on 23 April 2020, with a balance of term of 1 year expiring on 23 April 2021']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment