Bray v R [2018] NSWCCA 301

Bray v R [2018] NSWCCA 301

The sentencing judge’s assessment that each offence was just above the mid-range of objective seriousness was open, given the victims’ ages, the applicant’s authority over them, the invasion of their home and bedrooms, the repeated context, and the nature of the skin-to-skin and genital or forced penile touching. The six-month reduction of the non-parole period gave a substantive and intended effect to the finding of special circumstances. Considering the totality of the criminality, including two victims and substantial harm to V2, the 10-year aggregate sentence with a 7-year non-parole period was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court; Leave Granted and Appeal Against Sentence Determined
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Indecent Assault of Children' 'objective Seriousness' 'special Circumstances' 'aggregate Sentence' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing Statistics and Comparative Cases']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['aggravated Indecent Assault of Children' 'objective Seriousness' 'special Circumstances' 'aggregate Sentence' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing Statistics and Comparative Cases']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court; Leave Granted and Appeal Against Sentence Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give proper effect to the finding of special circumstances when fixing the non-parole period.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 10 years with a non-parole period of 7 years was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge’s assessment that each offence was just above the mid-range of objective seriousness was open, given the victims’ ages, the applicant’s authority over them, the invasion of their home and bedrooms, the repeated context, and the nature of the skin-to-skin and genital or forced penile touching. The six-month reduction of the non-parole period gave a substantive and intended effect to the finding of special circumstances. Considering the totality of the criminality, including two victims and substantial harm to V2, the 10-year aggregate sentence with a 7-year non-parole period was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.']