DF v R [2012] NSWCCA 171

DF v R [2012] NSWCCA 171

A Markuleski direction was not required because the directed not guilty verdict did not indicate jury rejection of the complainant's evidence; original sentences failed to reflect sentencing practices prevailing in 1978-1979, warranting resentencing according to those practices; original sentences were manifestly excessive given objective gravity and appellant's rehabilitated status.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Conviction and Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Conviction appeal: leave refused; Sentence appeal: allowed; appellant resentenced according to historical practices; aggregate head sentence and non-parole period reduced.
Legal Topics
['sexual Offences Against Children' 'sentencing Practices' 'credibility of Complainant' 'delay in Prosecution' 'health and Age of Offender']
['criminal Law'] ['sexual Offences Against Children' 'sentencing Practices' 'credibility of Complainant' 'delay in Prosecution' 'health and Age of Offender']

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

Conviction and Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether trial judge erred by not giving Markuleski direction on credibility' 'Whether sentences failed to reflect sentencing practices in 1978-1979' 'Whether sentences were manifestly excessive' "Whether appellant's health, age, and delay justified reduction"]

Ratio Decidendi

A Markuleski direction was not required because the directed not guilty verdict did not indicate jury rejection of the complainant's evidence; original sentences failed to reflect sentencing practices prevailing in 1978-1979, warranting resentencing according to those practices; original sentences were manifestly excessive given objective gravity and appellant's rehabilitated status.

Court Disposition

Conviction appeal: leave refused; Sentence appeal: allowed; appellant resentenced according to historical practices; aggregate head sentence and non-parole period reduced.

Orders

  • ['Conviction appeal: leave refused under r 4 Criminal Appeal Rules' 'Sentence appeal: appeal allowed' 'Sentences imposed on 25 February 2011 quashed' 'Appellant resentenced: Count 1, fixed term 1 year; Count 2, fixed term 1 year 6 months; Count 4, fixed term 1 year 6 months; Count 5, fixed term 1 year 6 months;...