DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200

DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200

The sentencing judge identified the objective gravity of each offence by reference to the relevant facts and aggravating and mitigating features, and was not required to nominate a position on a hypothetical scale of seriousness for offences carrying standard non-parole periods. The 30-year aggregate sentence with a 20-year non-parole period, although stern, was not manifestly excessive given the serious, repeated child sexual offending against nine victims over many years, including offending against DH's daughters and children entrusted to his care.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW at Sydney
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['child Sexual Offences' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentences' 'form 1 Offences' 'totality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['child Sexual Offences' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentences' 'form 1 Offences' 'totality']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW at Sydney

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in her assessment of the objective seriousness of the individual counts.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to indicate where on the scale of seriousness each offence fell, particularly offences carrying a standard non-parole period.' "Whether the aggregate sentence of 30 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years was manifestly excessive."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge identified the objective gravity of each offence by reference to the relevant facts and aggravating and mitigating features, and was not required to nominate a position on a hypothetical scale of seriousness for offences carrying standard non-parole periods. The 30-year aggregate sentence with a 20-year non-parole period, although stern, was not manifestly excessive given the serious, repeated child sexual offending against nine victims over many years, including offending against DH's daughters and children entrusted to his care.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']