Hayes v R [2023] NSWCCA 226

Hayes v R [2023] NSWCCA 226

No error was shown in the sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness because the two offences were intrinsically linked parts of a single course of conduct, and the judge understood the separate offences while properly assessing the offending as a whole. The aggregate sentence, although stern, was not unfair or unjust because the offending was serious and predatory, the applicant had a long history of similar offending against women, his prospects of rehabilitation were poor, and specific deterrence and protection of the community were significant sentencing considerations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted on ground 2; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence' 'stalking or Intimidation' 'enter Dwelling With Intent to Commit a Serious Indictable Offence' 'specific Deterrence' 'protection of the Community' 'antecedent Criminal History']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence' 'stalking or Intimidation' 'enter Dwelling With Intent to Commit a Serious Indictable Offence' 'specific Deterrence' 'protection of the Community' 'antecedent Criminal History']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to separately assess the objective seriousness of the two offences.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence of 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

No error was shown in the sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness because the two offences were intrinsically linked parts of a single course of conduct, and the judge understood the separate offences while properly assessing the offending as a whole. The aggregate sentence, although stern, was not unfair or unjust because the offending was serious and predatory, the applicant had a long history of similar offending against women, his prospects of rehabilitation were poor, and specific deterrence and protection of the community were significant sentencing considerations.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted on ground 2; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal on ground 2.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']