R v R E [2023] NSWCCA 184

R v R E [2023] NSWCCA 184

The sentencing judge made no error in declining to find aggravating matters beyond reasonable doubt as to motive, the respondent's state of knowledge of non-consent, or additional touching in count 1. Her Honour considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances in assessing objective seriousness. Although the sentence for counts 1 and 4 was lenient and the non-parole period generous, it was not manifestly inadequate given the respondent's strong subjective case, low risk of reoffending, serious ill health, and the significantly more onerous custodial conditions caused by inadequate and delayed medical care. The community corrections order for count 3 was within the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From District Court Sentence Imposed on 17 March 2023 After Jury Verdicts of Guilty
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'indecent Assault' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'knowledge of Non Consent' 'special Circumstances' 'ill Health in Custody']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'indecent Assault' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'knowledge of Non Consent' 'special Circumstances' 'ill Health in Custody']

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 on 17 March 2023 After Jury Verdicts of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of counts 1 and 4.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence for counts 1 and 4 was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the community corrections order for count 3 was manifestly inadequate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge made no error in declining to find aggravating matters beyond reasonable doubt as to motive, the respondent's state of knowledge of non-consent, or additional touching in count 1. Her Honour considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances in assessing objective seriousness. Although the sentence for counts 1 and 4 was lenient and the non-parole period generous, it was not manifestly inadequate given the respondent's strong subjective case, low risk of reoffending, serious ill health, and the significantly more onerous custodial conditions caused by inadequate and delayed medical care. The community corrections order for count 3 was within the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']