Wright v R [2016] NSWCCA 122

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Wright

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence of Alzheimer's diagnosis justifies intervention in the sentencing process
  2. 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.