Wright v R [2016] NSWCCA 122
Leave to appeal was refused because the fresh evidence of the applicant's Alzheimer's diagnosis, though qualifying as fresh evidence, was insufficient to warrant a fresh assessment of sentence. The sentencing judge had already given major consideration to the applicant's advanced age and ill-health in imposing a lenient sentence, and no miscarriage of justice was shown.
- Parties
- Applicant: Richard Wright; Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 23 June 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Against Sentence, Historical Child Sexual Assault, Fresh Evidence in Sentencing, Miscarriage of Justice, Sentencing Principles for Ill Health and Advanced Age
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Richard Wright
Applicant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether fresh evidence of Alzheimer's diagnosis justifies intervention in the sentencing process
- 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to take relevant health evidence into account, resulting in a miscarriage of justice
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the fresh evidence of the applicant's Alzheimer's diagnosis, though qualifying as fresh evidence, was insufficient to warrant a fresh assessment of sentence. The sentencing judge had already given major consideration to the applicant's advanced age and ill-health in imposing a lenient sentence, and no miscarriage of justice was shown.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Orders
- Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment