RJA v R [2014] NSWCCA 89
The appeal was allowed because the Court of Criminal Appeal erroneously applied the standard non-parole period as determinative, contrary to the approach required by Muldrock v The Queen, and thus a lesser sentence was warranted.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 May 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence After Referral Under Part 7 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; previous sentences quashed; appellant re-sentenced.
- Legal Topics
- ['appeal Against Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'sentencing Procedure']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence After Referral Under Part 7 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw)
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in its application of standard non-parole period provisions post-Muldrock v The Queen to the appellant's sentences for sexual offences against a child"]
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was allowed because the Court of Criminal Appeal erroneously applied the standard non-parole period as determinative, contrary to the approach required by Muldrock v The Queen, and thus a lesser sentence was warranted.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; previous sentences quashed; appellant re-sentenced.
Orders
- ['Allow the appeal.' 'Quash the sentences imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 10 June 2008.' 'Re-sentence the appellant as follows: Count 3 - imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months and a balance of 1 year 6 months, sentence dated from 18 August 2006; Count 4 - imprisonment with a non-parole...
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