R v Lau [2022] NSWCCA 131

R v Lau [2022] NSWCCA 131

The sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate because it failed to sufficiently reflect the seriousness and multiplicity of the respondent's sexual offending against vulnerable children over several years, failed to properly assess objective seriousness and aggravating features, and did not meet the fundamental purposes of sentencing. Intervention was required to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system; the respondent was re-sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Alex Chak Lau
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal, Post Conviction Sentencing Appeal
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; respondent re-sentenced
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Crown Appeal, Child Sexual Offences, Manifest Inadequacy, Aggravating Factors, Assessment of Objective Seriousness, Totality, Special Circumstances
Criminal Law Sentencing Crown Appeal Child Sexual Offences Manifest Inadequacy Aggravating Factors Assessment of Objective Seriousness Totality +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 53 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Alex Chak Lau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal, Post Conviction Sentencing Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Proper assessment of objective seriousness in sentencing for multiple child sexual offences
  3. 3 Approach to Form 1 offences in sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate because it failed to sufficiently reflect the seriousness and multiplicity of the respondent's sexual offending against vulnerable children over several years, failed to properly assess objective seriousness and aggravating features, and did not meet the fundamental purposes of sentencing. Intervention was required to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system; the respondent was re-sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; respondent re-sentenced

Orders

  • The Crown appeal against sentence is allowed.
  • The aggregate sentence imposed on the respondent in the District Court of New South Wales is quashed.