Moore v R [2019] NSWCCA 264

Moore v R [2019] NSWCCA 264

The sentencing judge did not err in finding Count 1 to be within the mid-range of objective seriousness and Count 4 to be significantly into the upper range, because those findings were open on the facts, including the planning, use of a weapon, sustained and brutal attack, unprovoked domestic relationship context, prolonged detention and extreme intimidation. The judge was also entitled to find the applicant's rehabilitation prospects guarded and to reject more favourable findings where the applicant had not established relevant mitigating matters on the balance of probabilities. Having regard to the gravity of the offending, the maximum penalties, the standard non-parole period for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Extension of Time and Leave Granted; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['domestic Violence Offences' 'aggregate Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'risk of Re Offending' 'manifest Excess' 'indicative Sentences' 'totality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['domestic Violence Offences' 'aggregate Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'risk of Re Offending' 'manifest Excess' 'indicative Sentences' 'totality']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Extension of Time and Leave Granted; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of Counts 1 and 4.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to accurately assess the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation and likelihood of re-offending." 'Whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in finding Count 1 to be within the mid-range of objective seriousness and Count 4 to be significantly into the upper range, because those findings were open on the facts, including the planning, use of a weapon, sustained and brutal attack, unprovoked domestic relationship context, prolonged detention and extreme intimidation. The judge was also entitled to find the applicant's rehabilitation prospects guarded and to reject more favourable findings where the applicant had not established relevant mitigating matters on the balance of probabilities. Having regard to the gravity of the offending, the maximum penalties, the standard non-parole period for...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Time to file Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal is extended to 25 July 2019.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']