Scales v R [2017] NSWCCA 293

Scales v R [2017] NSWCCA 293

The sentence for Count 2 was manifestly excessive because it did not reflect the sentencing judge's own findings that the objective seriousness of the offence was just below the mid-range and that the Applicant was entitled to a 25% discount for his early guilty plea. Against a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, a 7-year sentence with a 5-year non-parole period was inconsistent with those findings. Error was established, the sentence was quashed, and the Applicant was resentenced to 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal allowed; appeal against sentence upheld; sentence for Count 2 quashed and the Applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'child Sexual Offences' 'aggravated Indecent Assault' 'objective Seriousness' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'manifest Excess' 'specific Deterrence' 'general Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sentence Appeal' 'child Sexual Offences' 'aggravated Indecent Assault' 'objective Seriousness' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'manifest Excess' 'specific Deterrence' 'general Deterrence']

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 in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for Count 2, aggravated indecent assault against TWG, was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentence of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years reflected the sentencing judge's assessment that the offence was just below the mid-range of objective seriousness and the 25% discount for the early guilty plea." 'Whether the applicant should be resentenced following identification of sentencing error.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence for Count 2 was manifestly excessive because it did not reflect the sentencing judge's own findings that the objective seriousness of the offence was just below the mid-range and that the Applicant was entitled to a 25% discount for his early guilty plea. Against a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, a 7-year sentence with a 5-year non-parole period was inconsistent with those findings. Error was established, the sentence was quashed, and the Applicant was resentenced to 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal allowed; appeal against sentence upheld; sentence for Count 2 quashed and the Applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal allowed and the appeal against sentence upheld.' 'Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 1 July 2016 in respect of Count 2 on the indictment and in lieu, sentence the Applicant to imprisonment comprising a period of 5 years to commence on 26 November 2016 and expire on 25 November 2021...