Tindall v R [2019] NSWCCA 136
The absence of aggravating factors does not mitigate offending seriousness; the gravity is assessed on the facts. The sentencing judge did not err in considering objective seriousness, nor was the sentence unreasonable or plainly unjust. The sentence imposed was within the proper bounds of discretion; hence, although leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was dismissed.
- Parties
- Applicant: Scott Tindall; Respondent Crown: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 02 August 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Assessment of Objective Seriousness, Proportionality, Appeal Against Sentence, Aggravated Sexual Offences, Standard Non Parole Period Offences
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Scott Tindall
Applicant
Regina
Respondent Crown
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Did the sentencing judge err in the assessment of the objective gravity of the offences?
- 2 Was the sentence manifestly excessive?
Ratio Decidendi
The absence of aggravating factors does not mitigate offending seriousness; the gravity is assessed on the facts. The sentencing judge did not err in considering objective seriousness, nor was the sentence unreasonable or plainly unjust. The sentence imposed was within the proper bounds of discretion; hence, although leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Leave to appeal against sentence granted
- Appeal dismissed
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