Greenwood v Regina [2014] NSWCCA 64

Greenwood v Regina [2014] NSWCCA 64

The sentences were not manifestly excessive because the offending was serious, exploitative and committed against an unconscious, helpless and vulnerable 18-year-old victim; the applicant was on conditional liberty; there was no evidence of remorse; intoxication did not mitigate the conduct beyond explaining opportunism; the conduct was not shown to be out of character; loss of employment was not a mitigating extra-curial punishment; and the sentence was consistent with the maximum penalty and standard non-parole period for the principal offence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'indecent Assault' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'victim Unconscious Through Alcohol' 'general Deterrence' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'intoxication']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'indecent Assault' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'victim Unconscious Through Alcohol' 'general Deterrence' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'intoxication']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for sexual intercourse without consent and indecent assault was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave appropriate weight to the objective seriousness of the offending, including the victim's unconsciousness and vulnerability." "Whether the applicant's intoxication, alleged out-of-character conduct, and loss of employment warranted a lower sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences were not manifestly excessive because the offending was serious, exploitative and committed against an unconscious, helpless and vulnerable 18-year-old victim; the applicant was on conditional liberty; there was no evidence of remorse; intoxication did not mitigate the conduct beyond explaining opportunism; the conduct was not shown to be out of character; loss of employment was not a mitigating extra-curial punishment; and the sentence was consistent with the maximum penalty and standard non-parole period for the principal offence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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