REGINA v Andrew Robert MANNERS [2004] NSWCCA 181

REGINA v Andrew Robert MANNERS [2004] NSWCCA 181

The appeal was dismissed because the Crown did not establish any error of fact or principle in the sentencing judge's reasons, and although the sentence was lenient, especially given that the offence was committed while the respondent was on parole for like offences, it did not fall outside the range of the sentencing judge's discretion after taking into account the 25% discount for the early guilty plea.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence for Inadequacy / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['persistent Sexual Abuse of a Child' 'child Sexual Offences' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'prior Convictions' 'protection Custody' 'early Guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['persistent Sexual Abuse of a Child' 'child Sexual Offences' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'prior Convictions' 'protection Custody' 'early Guilty Plea Discount']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence for Inadequacy / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentence of 6 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months for persistent sexual abuse of a child was manifestly inadequate." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to reflect the objective seriousness of the offence, including that it was committed while the respondent was on parole for like offences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to address the purposes of adequate punishment and protection of the community under s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in his treatment of the respondent's prior convictions, character, and likely service of the sentence as a protection prisoner."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Crown did not establish any error of fact or principle in the sentencing judge's reasons, and although the sentence was lenient, especially given that the offence was committed while the respondent was on parole for like offences, it did not fall outside the range of the sentencing judge's discretion after taking into account the 25% discount for the early guilty plea.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']