Denham v R [2016] NSWCCA 309

Denham v R [2016] NSWCCA 309

The sentencing judge erred in applying a parole ratio inconsistent with historical sentencing practices, imposing a non-parole period comprising approximately 70% of the head sentence rather than the usual 35-50% for the period of offending. However, after re-exercising discretion, no lesser sentence is warranted given the extreme gravity and scale of the offending.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal, Appeal Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['historical Sentencing' 'child Sexual Assault' 'sentencing Principles' 'non Parole Periods' 'mitigating and Aggravating Factors' 'totality Principle' 'appeal Procedure']
['criminal Law'] ['historical Sentencing' 'child Sexual Assault' 'sentencing Principles' 'non Parole Periods' 'mitigating and Aggravating Factors' 'totality Principle' 'appeal Procedure']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal, Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly apply sentencing principles and practices existing at the time of the offending' 'Whether sufficient weight was given to the lack of offending since 1986 for rehabilitation and likelihood of re-offending' 'Whether offences were aggravated by being part of planned or organised criminal activity under s 21A(2)(n) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)' 'Whether the overall sentence and effective non-parole period was unreasonable or plainly unjust']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in applying a parole ratio inconsistent with historical sentencing practices, imposing a non-parole period comprising approximately 70% of the head sentence rather than the usual 35-50% for the period of offending. However, after re-exercising discretion, no lesser sentence is warranted given the extreme gravity and scale of the offending.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Extend time for filing of notice of appeal and application for leave to appeal to 24 May 2016.' 'Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']