SHR v R [2014] NSWCCA 94

SHR v R [2014] NSWCCA 94

Although the sentencing judge erred by not specifying indicative sentences after applying the guilty plea discount as required by s 53A(2)(b), that error alone did not compel appellate intervention. The first ground failed because the sentencing judge did not fail to take account of the applicant's youth. However, having regard to the sentencing standards applicable in 1989 and 1990, the applicant's youth and subjective circumstances, and comparable cases, the indicative sentences and the aggregate sentence of 14 years with a 10-year non-parole period were manifestly excessive. A lesser aggregate sentence of 12 years with an 8-year non-parole period was warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 years with a non-parole period of 8 years.
Legal Topics
['sexual Assault' 'robbery With an Offensive Weapon' 'historical Offences' 'juvenile Offender' 'aggregate Sentences of Imprisonment' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'manifest Excess' 're Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Assault' 'robbery With an Offensive Weapon' 'historical Offences' 'juvenile Offender' 'aggregate Sentences of Imprisonment' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'manifest Excess' 're Sentencing']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's youth and immaturity at the time of the offences." 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred under s 53A(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) by indicating sentences before applying the discount for the pleas of guilty.' 'What sentence should be imposed on re-sentence having regard to sentencing standards at the time of the offending.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge erred by not specifying indicative sentences after applying the guilty plea discount as required by s 53A(2)(b), that error alone did not compel appellate intervention. The first ground failed because the sentencing judge did not fail to take account of the applicant's youth. However, having regard to the sentencing standards applicable in 1989 and 1990, the applicant's youth and subjective circumstances, and comparable cases, the indicative sentences and the aggregate sentence of 14 years with a 10-year non-parole period were manifestly excessive. A lesser aggregate sentence of 12 years with an 8-year non-parole period was warranted.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 years with a non-parole period of 8 years.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court.' 'In lieu, sentence the applicant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 years, to date from 11 September 2010, comprising a non-parole period of 8 years and balance of term of 4 years.' 'The earliest day on which...