DM v R [2018] NSWCCA 305

DM v R [2018] NSWCCA 305

The sentencing judge erred in finding the applicant played a leadership role, which contributed to a disparity between the applicant's and co-accused's sentences. The applicant's sentence was reduced to achieve parity, as required by the principle of parity in sentencing co-offenders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, Post Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence at first instance quashed; applicant re-sentenced
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'parity' 'sexual Offences' 'juvenile Sentencing']
['criminal Law'] ['sentence Appeal' 'parity' 'sexual Offences' 'juvenile Sentencing']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal, Post Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge made a material factual error in finding the applicant knew the victim had nowhere to go' 'Whether the sentencing judge made a material factual error in finding the applicant was in a position of leadership' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to make a finding of objective seriousness' "Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance compared to co-accused's sentence" 'Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in finding the applicant played a leadership role, which contributed to a disparity between the applicant's and co-accused's sentences. The applicant's sentence was reduced to achieve parity, as required by the principle of parity in sentencing co-offenders.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence at first instance quashed; applicant re-sentenced

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is allowed and the sentence imposed at first instance is quashed.' 'The offender is sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment for four years and six months with a non-parole period of two years and five months, to commence on 27 July 2016.' 'The first date on which the...