RL v R [2018] NSWCCA 274

RL v R [2018] NSWCCA 274

The appeal was dismissed because, although there was a significant difference between the sentences for Counts 5 and 6, the increase for Count 6 was justified by the seriousness of the associated Form 1 offence and the overall gravity of offending. The sentencing judge considered relevant statutory principles, totality, and accumulation, and the resulting sentences were within the discretion afforded and not manifestly excessive or plainly unjust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Sentence From District Court to Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Assault' 'sentencing' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law'] ['sexual Assault' 'sentencing' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'form 1 Offences']

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

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Sentence From District Court to Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessment of the objective seriousness of particular offences (Counts 5 and 6)' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred when accumulating each sentence by failing to consider totality' 'Whether the head sentence imposed for Count 6 was manifestly excessive' 'Whether error in sentencing process should be inferred' 'Whether attachment of a Form 1 offence to sentence for Count 6 explained the head sentence difference']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, although there was a significant difference between the sentences for Counts 5 and 6, the increase for Count 6 was justified by the seriousness of the associated Form 1 offence and the overall gravity of offending. The sentencing judge considered relevant statutory principles, totality, and accumulation, and the resulting sentences were within the discretion afforded and not manifestly excessive or plainly unjust.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']