R v Jackson [2024] NSWCCA 156

R v Jackson [2024] NSWCCA 156

The aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate because the four offences were serious examples of sexual intercourse without consent committed against a vulnerable 19 year old victim on an isolated property by a 62 year old respondent, with an age and power differential, a threat calculated to negate resistance, use of body weight and a hand on the victim's neck, no guilty plea discount, no contrition or remorse, and no compelling subjective features. The low indicative sentences and high level of notional concurrency meant the aggregate sentence failed to reflect the total criminality. The Crown also negated the basis for exercising the residual discretion, given the swift appeal,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From District Court Sentence Imposed After Jury Trial; Resentencing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced to 6 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years.
Legal Topics
['crown Sentence Appeal' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'residual Discretion' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['crown Sentence Appeal' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'residual Discretion' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']

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 / Appeal From District Court Sentence Imposed After Jury Trial; Resentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentence imposed for four counts of sexual intercourse without consent was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its residual discretion to decline to intervene despite finding error.' 'What sentence should be imposed on re-sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate because the four offences were serious examples of sexual intercourse without consent committed against a vulnerable 19 year old victim on an isolated property by a 62 year old respondent, with an age and power differential, a threat calculated to negate resistance, use of body weight and a hand on the victim's neck, no guilty plea discount, no contrition or remorse, and no compelling subjective features. The low indicative sentences and high level of notional concurrency meant the aggregate sentence failed to reflect the total criminality. The Crown also negated the basis for exercising the residual discretion, given the swift appeal,...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced to 6 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years.

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal.' 'Quash the sentence imposed on the respondent in the District Court on 22 February 2024, and in lieu thereof, sentence the respondent to a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years, commencing on 16 November 2023. The date the respondent is first eligible for release to...