R v Rush [2000] NSWCCA 134

R v Rush [2000] NSWCCA 134

The overall sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate given the objective circumstances and the gravity of the offences. The sentencing judge's adjustment under s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1989 resulted in sentences that failed to properly reflect the overall criminality. The Court allowed the Crown appeal in relation to counts 1 and 5, quashed the sentences, and resentenced the respondent with increased terms. The Crown appeal regarding counts 2 and 3 was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Shayne Charles Rush
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Judgment on Crown Appeal
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed in part; sentences quashed and respondent resentenced on counts 1 and 5; Crown appeal dismissed on counts 2 and 3.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Crown Appeals, Sexual Offences Against Children, Manifestly Inadequate Sentences
Criminal Law Sentencing Crown Appeals Sexual Offences Against Children Manifestly Inadequate Sentences

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Shayne Charles Rush

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Judgment on Crown Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the respondent were manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Whether any error of principle in the sentencing process was identified
  3. 3 Appropriate resentencing on counts 1 and 5

Ratio Decidendi

The overall sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate given the objective circumstances and the gravity of the offences. The sentencing judge's adjustment under s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1989 resulted in sentences that failed to properly reflect the overall criminality. The Court allowed the Crown appeal in relation to counts 1 and 5, quashed the sentences, and resentenced the respondent with increased terms. The Crown appeal regarding counts 2 and 3 was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed in part; sentences quashed and respondent resentenced on counts 1 and 5; Crown appeal dismissed on counts 2 and 3.

Orders

  • In relation to counts 1 and 5, the Crown appeal be allowed and the sentences quashed; in lieu thereof respondent resentenced as follows:
  • Count 1: penal servitude for three years and six months (minimum two years and six months, commencing 18 September 1998 and expiring 17 March 2001; additional term one year, commencing 18 March 2001 and expiring 17 March 2002).