RP v R [2013] NSWCCA 192

RP v R [2013] NSWCCA 192

The sentencing judge gave excessive weight to the victim impact statement, which resulted in a sentence that was plainly unjust. The factual circumstances placed the offending near the bottom of the relevant range and the discretion miscarried, requiring appellate intervention and resentence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant resentenced
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'indecent Assault' 'assessment of Objective Seriousness' 'victim Impact Statements' 'manifest Excess' 'resentence']

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 / Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence' 'Whether excessive weight was given to the victim impact statement' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge gave excessive weight to the victim impact statement, which resulted in a sentence that was plainly unjust. The factual circumstances placed the offending near the bottom of the relevant range and the discretion miscarried, requiring appellate intervention and resentence.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant resentenced

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Sentence imposed by Armitage DCJ on 6 February 2012 for the single count on the first indictment is quashed.' 'In lieu, applicant is sentenced to two months imprisonment commencing 7 January 2010 and expiring 6 March 2010.' 'Commencement and expiration dates for...