R v AB [2015] NSWCCA 57

R v AB [2015] NSWCCA 57

The Court dismissed the Crown appeal because none of the asserted errors was established and the 7 year limiting term was not shown to be unreasonable, plainly unjust or below the permissible range. The sentencing judge did not take remorse into account as a mitigating factor, the finding of no future dangerous violence was open given the respondent's age, dementia and physical frailty, the judge did not err in his approach to the purpose of a limiting term, the objective seriousness of the manslaughter was sufficiently recognised, and manifest inadequacy was not made out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Crown Appeal Under S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) Against Asserted Inadequacy of a Limiting Term Nominated After a Special Hearing
Outcome
Crown appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['manslaughter' 'limiting Term' 'special Hearing' 'fitness to Be Tried' 'substantial Impairment by Abnormality of Mind' 'remorse' 'risk of Reoffending' 'objective Gravity' 'manifest Inadequacy']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals' 'mental Health and Forensic Procedure'] ['manslaughter' 'limiting Term' 'special Hearing' 'fitness to Be Tried' 'substantial Impairment by Abnormality of Mind' 'remorse' 'risk of Reoffending' 'objective Gravity' 'manifest Inadequacy']

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 Sentencing Appeal / Crown Appeal Under S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) Against Asserted Inadequacy of a Limiting Term Nominated After a Special Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by finding that the respondent expressed guilt and remorse.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by finding that the respondent will not again commit an act of dangerous violence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle in stating the purpose of a limiting term.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to make a finding as to the objective gravity of the manslaughter.' 'Whether the limiting term of 7 years was manifestly inadequate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the Crown appeal because none of the asserted errors was established and the 7 year limiting term was not shown to be unreasonable, plainly unjust or below the permissible range. The sentencing judge did not take remorse into account as a mitigating factor, the finding of no future dangerous violence was open given the respondent's age, dementia and physical frailty, the judge did not err in his approach to the purpose of a limiting term, the objective seriousness of the manslaughter was sufficiently recognised, and manifest inadequacy was not made out.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal dismissed']