HJWG v R [2011] NSWCCA 50

HJWG v R [2011] NSWCCA 50

Although the sentencing judge erred in process by failing to give sufficient detail in assessing objective seriousness, that error did not warrant resentencing because the findings and sentences were open. The assessment of count 4 as slightly above the mid range was open having regard to the applicant's exploitation of his young daughter and the breach of trust. The individual sentences and aggregate sentence, though severe, were not manifestly excessive when the statutory maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods were considered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2011
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 Assault' 'child Sexual Offences' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['sexual Assault' 'child Sexual Offences' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'guilty Plea Discount']

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 sentencing judge erred by failing to properly assess the objective seriousness of the offences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the objective seriousness of count 4 fell above the mid range of objective seriousness.' 'Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.' "Whether the Court should intervene despite an error of process in the sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge erred in process by failing to give sufficient detail in assessing objective seriousness, that error did not warrant resentencing because the findings and sentences were open. The assessment of count 4 as slightly above the mid range was open having regard to the applicant's exploitation of his young daughter and the breach of trust. The individual sentences and aggregate sentence, though severe, were not manifestly excessive when the statutory maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods were considered.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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