REGINA v J C W [2000] NSWCCA 209

REGINA v J C W [2000] NSWCCA 209

Because Counts 3 and 4 were statute barred, the sentences had to be quashed and the Court had to resentence the applicant on Counts 1 and 2. The applicant's admission that the counts relating to DAW were representative of other conduct could properly be used to reject a claim to mitigation based on the offences being isolated, but the general admission lacked sufficient precision to be used as an aggravating circumstance. The guilty pleas and the applicant's childhood sexual abuse had been given sufficient weight, and the sentence was not otherwise manifestly excessive; however, resentencing was required after the quashing of Counts 3 and 4 and applying totality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Application for Extension of Time and Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Extension of time granted, appeal allowed, sentences imposed on 14 August 1997 quashed, and the applicant resentenced on Counts 1 and 2; remitter of Counts 3 and 4 to the Local Court declined.
Legal Topics
['representative Counts' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'statutory Limitation on Prosecution' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'guilty Plea' 'mitigation' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['representative Counts' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'statutory Limitation on Prosecution' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'guilty Plea' 'mitigation' 'non Parole Period']

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 Conviction and Sentence / Application for Extension of Time and Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether convictions on Counts 3 and 4 could stand where prosecution was barred by s 78 of the Crimes Act 1900 at the time of the offences.' 'Whether the sentencing court could sentence on the basis that the counts were representative of other similar sexual misconduct.' 'Whether taking representative conduct into account offended the principle that a person should not be punished for offences for which the person has not been convicted.' "Whether sufficient weight was given to the applicant's guilty pleas and his own childhood sexual abuse." 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and how the applicant should be resentenced after Counts 3 and 4 were quashed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Counts 3 and 4 were statute barred, the sentences had to be quashed and the Court had to resentence the applicant on Counts 1 and 2. The applicant's admission that the counts relating to DAW were representative of other conduct could properly be used to reject a claim to mitigation based on the offences being isolated, but the general admission lacked sufficient precision to be used as an aggravating circumstance. The guilty pleas and the applicant's childhood sexual abuse had been given sufficient weight, and the sentence was not otherwise manifestly excessive; however, resentencing was required after the quashing of Counts 3 and 4 and applying totality.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted, appeal allowed, sentences imposed on 14 August 1997 quashed, and the applicant resentenced on Counts 1 and 2; remitter of Counts 3 and 4 to the Local Court declined.

Orders

  • ['That time in which the appeal may be brought be enlarged and the appeal allowed.' 'That the sentences imposed on 14 August 1997 be quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, the Applicant be sentenced on Count 1 to imprisonment for ten years commencing on 8 August 1997 with a non-parole period of eight years, and on Count 2 to...