Baker v R [2022] NSWCCA 195

Baker v R [2022] NSWCCA 195

By majority, the Court held that the sentencing judge's findings of actual knowledge of the victim's cognitive impairment, aggravation by the age differential, aggravation by a threat not to tell anyone, and the treatment of rehabilitation and risk of re-offending were open. The reasons as a whole showed that rehabilitation had been considered, and the aggregate sentence of 19 years with a non-parole period of 13 years and 4 months was not manifestly excessive having regard to the seriousness of the offending, the substantial aggravating factors and the matters in mitigation. Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'aggravated Indecent Assault' 'victim With Cognitive Impairment' 'objective Seriousness' 'aggravating Factors' 'threats' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'risk of Re Offending' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'aggravated Indecent Assault' 'victim With Cognitive Impairment' 'objective Seriousness' 'aggravating Factors' 'threats' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'risk of Re Offending' 'manifest Excess']

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 From the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant had actual knowledge that the victim was intellectually impaired.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the victim's chronological age was an aggravating factor." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant threatened the victim and in treating that as an aggravating factor.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant had not established prospects for rehabilitation and that there was a risk of re-offending.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the sentencing judge's findings of actual knowledge of the victim's cognitive impairment, aggravation by the age differential, aggravation by a threat not to tell anyone, and the treatment of rehabilitation and risk of re-offending were open. The reasons as a whole showed that rehabilitation had been considered, and the aggregate sentence of 19 years with a non-parole period of 13 years and 4 months was not manifestly excessive having regard to the seriousness of the offending, the substantial aggravating factors and the matters in mitigation. Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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