Wright v R [2019] NSWCCA 134

Wright v R [2019] NSWCCA 134

Although the sentencing judge did not expressly name the totality principle, the remarks during the sentence hearing and the indicative sentences showed that totality was considered. The aggregate sentence of 12 years with a 9 year non-parole period reflected a significant degree of concurrency when compared with the indicative sentences and was within the range available to reflect the criminality of the three offences. The comparative cases did not demonstrate any misapplication of principle or manifest excess.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against the Severity of an Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Sexual Assault' 'aggravated Indecent Assault' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'totality Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'comparative Sentencing Cases']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['aggravated Sexual Assault' 'aggravated Indecent Assault' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'totality Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'comparative Sentencing Cases']

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 Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against the Severity of an Aggregate Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to have proper regard to and apply the principle of totality when imposing an aggregate sentence.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge did not expressly name the totality principle, the remarks during the sentence hearing and the indicative sentences showed that totality was considered. The aggregate sentence of 12 years with a 9 year non-parole period reflected a significant degree of concurrency when compared with the indicative sentences and was within the range available to reflect the criminality of the three offences. The comparative cases did not demonstrate any misapplication of principle or manifest excess.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']