Al Dhaifa v R [2024] NSWCCA 108

Al Dhaifa v R [2024] NSWCCA 108

The Court held that no error was shown in the sentencing Judge's assessment of objective seriousness, indicative sentences or aggregate sentence. The victims' ages could be relevant both to the offences and to separate aggravating features such as vulnerability and abuse of trust or authority, provided the Judge did not punish twice for the same matter. The Judge's reasons showed no double-counting, were adequate, and the assessments and indicative sentences were within discretion. Given the 18 offences against five victims over 24 years, the seriousness of the conduct, and the need for general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation, the aggregate sentence of 25 years with a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['child Sexual Offences' 'aggravating Factors' 'victim Vulnerability' 'abuse of Position of Trust or Authority' 'double Counting' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['child Sexual Offences' 'aggravating Factors' 'victim Vulnerability' 'abuse of Position of Trust or Authority' 'double Counting' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing Judge erred in finding aggravation under s 21A(2)(l) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 by reason of the age of the victims.' "Whether the sentencing Judge double-counted the victims' age when assessing vulnerability, abuse of trust or authority, and objective seriousness." 'Whether the sentencing Judge gave adequate reasons for findings of aggravation.' 'Whether the aggregate head sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that no error was shown in the sentencing Judge's assessment of objective seriousness, indicative sentences or aggregate sentence. The victims' ages could be relevant both to the offences and to separate aggravating features such as vulnerability and abuse of trust or authority, provided the Judge did not punish twice for the same matter. The Judge's reasons showed no double-counting, were adequate, and the assessments and indicative sentences were within discretion. Given the 18 offences against five victims over 24 years, the seriousness of the conduct, and the need for general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation, the aggregate sentence of 25 years with a...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal to the Applicant.' 'Appeal dismissed.']