R v ND [2016] NSWCCA 103

R v ND [2016] NSWCCA 103

The sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly inadequate as it did not properly reflect the objective seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, or legislative guideposts. The correct characterisation was that the offence was below, but not far below, the mid-range of objective seriousness. A sentence of imprisonment for 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years was appropriate.

Parties
Applicant: Regina; Respondent: ND
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment After Sentence in District Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Sentence quashed. New sentence imposed.
Legal Topics
Crown Appeal Against Sentence, Manifestly Inadequate Sentence, Sexual Intercourse With Child Under 10, Objective Seriousness in Sentencing, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors, General and Specific Deterrence, Denunciation
Criminal Law Crown Appeal Against Sentence Manifestly Inadequate Sentence Sexual Intercourse With Child Under 10 Objective Seriousness in Sentencing Aggravating and Mitigating Factors General and Specific Deterrence Denunciation

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Applicant

ND

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment After Sentence in District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge correctly assessed the objective seriousness of the offence
  3. 3 Role of aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing for offence against s 66A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly inadequate as it did not properly reflect the objective seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, or legislative guideposts. The correct characterisation was that the offence was below, but not far below, the mid-range of objective seriousness. A sentence of imprisonment for 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Sentence quashed. New sentence imposed.

Orders

  • Appeal upheld.
  • Sentence of the District Court (Norton SC DCJ) imposed on 6 November 2015 be quashed.