ME v R [2019] NSWCCA 91

ME v R [2019] NSWCCA 91

The sentencing discretion did not miscarry because, read as a whole, the remarks on sentence showed that the sentencing judge knew sequence 13 was an offence of aggravated sexual intercourse with a child above 14 and under 16 years, knew the applicable maximum penalty of 12 years and standard non-parole period of five years, and fixed an indicative sentence consistent with his finding that the offence approached the most serious form of offending under s 66C(4). The incorrect reference to the 10 to 14 year age range was a slip of the tongue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Sexual Intercourse With a Child' 'inciting a Child to Commit an Act of Indecency' 'form 1 Offences' 'indicative Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'sentencing Discretion']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['aggravated Sexual Intercourse With a Child' 'inciting a Child to Commit an Act of Indecency' 'form 1 Offences' 'indicative Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'sentencing Discretion']

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 and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in fixing the indicative sentence for sequence 13 by wrongly treating it as aggravated sexual intercourse with a child aged between 10 and 14 years rather than aggravated sexual intercourse with a child above 14 and under 16 years.' 'Whether any misdescription in the remarks on sentence caused the sentencing discretion to miscarry.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing discretion did not miscarry because, read as a whole, the remarks on sentence showed that the sentencing judge knew sequence 13 was an offence of aggravated sexual intercourse with a child above 14 and under 16 years, knew the applicable maximum penalty of 12 years and standard non-parole period of five years, and fixed an indicative sentence consistent with his finding that the offence approached the most serious form of offending under s 66C(4). The incorrect reference to the 10 to 14 year age range was a slip of the tongue.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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