SB v R [2022] NSWCCA 164

SB v R [2022] NSWCCA 164

The aggregate sentence was stern but within the available range for offending of this seriousness. The sentencing judge properly assessed gravity, considered both objective and subjective factors, was entitled to impose partial accumulation between counts reflecting separate incidents and victims, and did not err in applying totality; the absence of aggravating features did not mitigate seriousness; no error shown. There were no grounds to disturb the sentence despite the delay in filing the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence, Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'sentencing Procedure' 'concurrence and Accumulation' 'extension of Time']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'sentencing Procedure' 'concurrence and Accumulation' 'extension of Time']

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, Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessment of objective and subjective factors' 'Whether issues of concurrence and accumulation between counts led to manifest excess' 'Whether unexplained delay in seeking leave to appeal warrants extension of time']

Ratio Decidendi

The aggregate sentence was stern but within the available range for offending of this seriousness. The sentencing judge properly assessed gravity, considered both objective and subjective factors, was entitled to impose partial accumulation between counts reflecting separate incidents and victims, and did not err in applying totality; the absence of aggravating features did not mitigate seriousness; no error shown. There were no grounds to disturb the sentence despite the delay in filing the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Grant an extension of time until 22 February 2022 in which to file an application for leave to appeal' 'Grant leave to appeal' 'Dismiss the appeal']