Regina v Gould [1999] NSWCCA 177

Regina v Gould [1999] NSWCCA 177

No sentencing error was shown. Count 2 was objectively towards the higher end of seriousness, particularly because the applicant stood in the position of father to the victim and the schedule offences had to be reflected in the sentence. The sentencing judge took account of the guilty pleas, health, age, rehabilitation and other subjective matters, and the sentence and its structure did not fall outside the range open to the sentencing judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentences in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Severity' 'manifest Excess' 'indecent Assault' 'sexual Intercourse With a Child by Person in Authority' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'guilty Pleas' 'offences Taken Into Account on a Schedule']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Severity' 'manifest Excess' 'indecent Assault' 'sexual Intercourse With a Child by Person in Authority' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'guilty Pleas' 'offences Taken Into Account on a Schedule']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentences in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed on count 2 was manifestly excessive having regard to the objective seriousness of the offending.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave adequate weight to the applicant's age, health, good character, guilty pleas, contrition and prospects of rehabilitation." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in structuring the sentence after finding special circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

No sentencing error was shown. Count 2 was objectively towards the higher end of seriousness, particularly because the applicant stood in the position of father to the victim and the schedule offences had to be reflected in the sentence. The sentencing judge took account of the guilty pleas, health, age, rehabilitation and other subjective matters, and the sentence and its structure did not fall outside the range open to the sentencing judge.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']