R v CTG [2017] NSWCCA 163
The sentencing judge erred by treating absence of aggravating factors as mitigation, failing to properly account for the victim's age and vulnerability, using lack of evidence of psychological harm as mitigation, and inadequately applying the principle of totality; the aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate and plainly unjust, warranting resentencing.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 July 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Crown appeal allowed, respondent resentenced
- Legal Topics
- ['sentencing' 'crown Appeal' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'possession of Firearm' 'child Abuse Material']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate' 'Errors in the assessment of objective seriousness of the offences' 'Failure to properly apply principle of totality' 'Mitigation factors improperly considered']
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge erred by treating absence of aggravating factors as mitigation, failing to properly account for the victim's age and vulnerability, using lack of evidence of psychological harm as mitigation, and inadequately applying the principle of totality; the aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate and plainly unjust, warranting resentencing.
Court Disposition
Crown appeal allowed, respondent resentenced
Orders
- ['Crown appeal allowed' 'Sentence imposed by Williams SC DCJ on 24 February 2017 is quashed' 'Respondent sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years with a non-parole period of 8 years, commencing 7 May 2015' 'Non-parole period expires 6 May 2023; total term expires 6 May 2027']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment