R v Fisher [2024] NSWCCA 191

R v Fisher [2024] NSWCCA 191

The sentencing judge erred in limiting the assessment of objective seriousness to specific unlawful sexual acts corresponding with alternative counts, rather than the totality of offending proved for the s 66EA offences. This amounted to patent error, and, in any event, the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate given the seriousness and circumstances of the unlawful sexual relationships. The appeal must be allowed, the sentence quashed, and the respondent resentenced.

Parties
Appellant: Rex; Respondent: Ronald Fisher
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Sentence, Persistent Sexual Abuse of a Child, Sentencing Principles, Objective Seriousness, Manifest Inadequacy
Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence Persistent Sexual Abuse of a Child Sentencing Principles Objective Seriousness Manifest Inadequacy

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 40 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Appellant

Ronald Fisher

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Correct approach to assessment of objective seriousness for offences against s 66EA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred by limiting assessment to those sexual acts forming alternative counts
  3. 3 Whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in limiting the assessment of objective seriousness to specific unlawful sexual acts corresponding with alternative counts, rather than the totality of offending proved for the s 66EA offences. This amounted to patent error, and, in any event, the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate given the seriousness and circumstances of the unlawful sexual relationships. The appeal must be allowed, the sentence quashed, and the respondent resentenced.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • 1. Allow the appeal;
  • 2. Quash the sentence imposed on the respondent in the District Court on 26 April 2024, and in lieu thereof, sentence the respondent to a term of imprisonment of 15 years with a non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months, commencing on 20 April 2021. The date the respondent is first eligible for release to parole is...