Rajasekar v R [2017] NSWCCA 113

Rajasekar v R [2017] NSWCCA 113

The sentencing structure involved a significant degree of concurrency, while permitting some accumulation to recognise distinct criminality against separate victims, and therefore did not breach the totality principle. Given the seriousness of the offending, the maximum penalties, the number of victims, the scheduled offences, and the need for denunciation and deterrence, the individual and overall sentences were not unreasonable or unjust and were not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Pursuant to S 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['use Carriage Service to Groom Person Under 16' 'use Carriage Service to Engage in Sexual Activity With Person Under 16' 'possess Child Abuse Material' 'totality Principle' 'concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'child Abuse Material']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['use Carriage Service to Groom Person Under 16' 'use Carriage Service to Engage in Sexual Activity With Person Under 16' 'possess Child Abuse Material' 'totality Principle' 'concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'child Abuse Material']

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 Pursuant to S 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge breached the principle of totality by failing to impose a sufficiently significant degree of concurrency.' 'Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing structure involved a significant degree of concurrency, while permitting some accumulation to recognise distinct criminality against separate victims, and therefore did not breach the totality principle. Given the seriousness of the offending, the maximum penalties, the number of victims, the scheduled offences, and the need for denunciation and deterrence, the individual and overall sentences were not unreasonable or unjust and were not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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