Zhao v R [2019] NSWCCA 203

Zhao v R [2019] NSWCCA 203

By majority, the Court held that no sentencing error was established. It was open to the sentencing judge to assess the principal indecent assault offence as well and truly in the mid-range of objective seriousness, to give limited weight to untested expressions of remorse, to allow a 12% discount for a late guilty plea, and to conclude that no sentence other than full-time imprisonment was appropriate. The sentence of 26 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 months was not unreasonable, plainly unjust, or outside the available range.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['indecent Assault' 'objective Seriousness' 'remorse' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'alternatives to Full Time Imprisonment' 'manifest Excess' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['indecent Assault' 'objective Seriousness' 'remorse' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'alternatives to Full Time Imprisonment' 'manifest Excess' 'form 1 Offences']

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 Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the objective seriousness of the offending to be in the mid-range' "Whether the sentencing judge erred by not giving sufficient weight to the applicant's remorse" 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to apply a sufficient discount for the guilty plea' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider alternatives to full-time imprisonment' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that no sentencing error was established. It was open to the sentencing judge to assess the principal indecent assault offence as well and truly in the mid-range of objective seriousness, to give limited weight to untested expressions of remorse, to allow a 12% discount for a late guilty plea, and to conclude that no sentence other than full-time imprisonment was appropriate. The sentence of 26 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 months was not unreasonable, plainly unjust, or outside the available range.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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