Wakeling v R [2016] NSWCCA 33

Wakeling v R [2016] NSWCCA 33

The Sentencing Judge did not err in the assessment of objective seriousness as he remained conscious of the limits of s 66C(4), but erred in setting the non-parole period at 77% of the head sentence without appropriate explanation, warranting re-sentencing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; sentence quashed; re-sentence imposed
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse' 'objective Seriousness' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse' 'objective Seriousness' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']

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 / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Sentencing Judge erred in the finding relating to the objective seriousness of the offence' 'Whether the Sentencing Judge erred in setting the non-parole period']

Ratio Decidendi

The Sentencing Judge did not err in the assessment of objective seriousness as he remained conscious of the limits of s 66C(4), but erred in setting the non-parole period at 77% of the head sentence without appropriate explanation, warranting re-sentencing.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; sentence quashed; re-sentence imposed

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal upheld.' 'Quash the sentence imposed by Judge Maiden in the District Court on 7 March 2014.' 'In lieu thereof, sentence the Appellant to a non-parole period of four years and one month commencing 22 July 2013 and expiring 21 August 2017 with an additional term of one year nine...