SKA v R; R v SKA [2009] NSWCCA 186

SKA v R; R v SKA [2009] NSWCCA 186

It was open to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence for all counts. The trial judge erred in not treating the standard non-parole period as a guide for Count 1, resulting in manifestly inadequate sentence. Crown appeal allowed in respect of Count 1; appellant re-sentenced with increased non-parole period. No error requiring variation of sentences for other counts. General deterrence required consideration in sentencing; overall effective sentence must reflect totality of criminality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against severity of sentence dismissed; Crown appeal allowed in respect of Count 1; sentences varied.
Legal Topics
['particular Offences' 'offences Against the Person' 'sexual Offences' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Severity of Sentence' 'crown Appeal Against Manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'assessment of Objective Gravity' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'evidence Given in Trial by Video']
['criminal Law'] ['particular Offences' 'offences Against the Person' 'sexual Offences' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Severity of Sentence' 'crown Appeal Against Manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'assessment of Objective Gravity' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'evidence Given in Trial by Video']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence' 'Proper approach to appeal court viewing video-recorded evidence' 'Whether sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate or excessive' 'Assessment of objective gravity for sentencing' 'Application of standard non-parole periods for child sexual offences']

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence for all counts. The trial judge erred in not treating the standard non-parole period as a guide for Count 1, resulting in manifestly inadequate sentence. Crown appeal allowed in respect of Count 1; appellant re-sentenced with increased non-parole period. No error requiring variation of sentences for other counts. General deterrence required consideration in sentencing; overall effective sentence must reflect totality of criminality.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against severity of sentence dismissed; Crown appeal allowed in respect of Count 1; sentences varied.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal against severity of sentence dismissed' 'Crown appeal allowed in respect of the sentence imposed in respect of Count 1' 'Count 1 sentence quashed; appellant re-sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years,...