Carroll v R [2019] NSWCCA 243
No error was demonstrated in the sentencing judge's approach; aggravating factors were not double counted. The aggregate sentence, though substantial, was not manifestly excessive given the gravity and repeated nature of the offending, breach of trust, and victim's vulnerability. The appeal against sentence should be dismissed.
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Carroll (a pseudonym); Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 October 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave and Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Assault, Sentence Appeal, Manifest Excess, Double Counting Aggravating Features
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Patrick Carroll (a pseudonym)
Applicant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave and Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Did the sentencing judge double count statutory aggravating features when assessing objective seriousness of the s.66A(2) offence?
- 2 Was the aggregate sentence manifestly excessive?
Ratio Decidendi
No error was demonstrated in the sentencing judge's approach; aggravating factors were not double counted. The aggregate sentence, though substantial, was not manifestly excessive given the gravity and repeated nature of the offending, breach of trust, and victim's vulnerability. The appeal against sentence should be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Orders
- Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
- Appeal against sentence dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment