Leddin v R [2008] NSWCCA 242

Leddin v R [2008] NSWCCA 242

The sentencing judge erred in law by failing to specify non-parole periods for counts 2 and 3 because the s 61J(1) offences were offences in the Table to Division 1A and fixed terms were not available. The judge did give reasons for declining to set a non-parole period for count 1, so that ground failed. The count 1 sentence of 11 years 6 months, treated as a minimum term, was manifestly excessive by reference to the 20 year maximum and the statistics. However, having regard to the gravity of the connected course of sexual violence, detention, bodily harm, threats, aggravating factors, the applicant's history and the totality principle, the overall effective sentence of 12 years with an...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; sentences on counts 1, 2 and 3 quashed and varied; sentence on count 4 confirmed; overall effective sentence unchanged.
Legal Topics
['detention for Advantage' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'non Parole Periods' 'fixed Term Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'totality Principle']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['detention for Advantage' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'non Parole Periods' 'fixed Term Sentences' 'manifest Excess' 'totality Principle']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to set a non-parole period in respect of counts 2 and 3.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to give reasons for setting a fixed term in respect of count 1.' 'Whether the sentence for count 1, if intended to represent a minimum term, was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the aggregate head sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in law by failing to specify non-parole periods for counts 2 and 3 because the s 61J(1) offences were offences in the Table to Division 1A and fixed terms were not available. The judge did give reasons for declining to set a non-parole period for count 1, so that ground failed. The count 1 sentence of 11 years 6 months, treated as a minimum term, was manifestly excessive by reference to the 20 year maximum and the statistics. However, having regard to the gravity of the connected course of sexual violence, detention, bodily harm, threats, aggravating factors, the applicant's history and the totality principle, the overall effective sentence of 12 years with an...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; sentences on counts 1, 2 and 3 quashed and varied; sentence on count 4 confirmed; overall effective sentence unchanged.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Quash the sentences in respect of counts 1, 2 and 3.' 'Count 1: The applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of 9 years commencing on 9 June 2006 and expiring on 8 June 2015.' 'Count 2: The applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years 4 months to commence on 9 June...