De Wet v R [2015] NSWCCA 23

De Wet v R [2015] NSWCCA 23

The sentencing judge did not err in assessing objective seriousness because the kidnapping and assault were considered separately in the context of continuous criminality, and practical effect was given to the purposes of sentencing in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Partial accumulation was required because the kidnapping involved distinct criminality, namely unlawful deprivation of liberty in company, which was not encompassed by the later offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm. The sentence for grievous bodily harm with intent, although stern, was warranted by the vicious, sustained and brutal assault and was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'specially Aggravated Detain for Advantage' 'inflict Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent' 'objective Seriousness' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'specially Aggravated Detain for Advantage' 'inflict Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent' 'objective Seriousness' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'manifest Excess']

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 Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by not assessing the objective seriousness of each offence separately.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by accumulating the sentences by one year rather than making them wholly concurrent.' 'Whether the sentence on the count of inflict grievous bodily harm with intent was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in assessing objective seriousness because the kidnapping and assault were considered separately in the context of continuous criminality, and practical effect was given to the purposes of sentencing in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Partial accumulation was required because the kidnapping involved distinct criminality, namely unlawful deprivation of liberty in company, which was not encompassed by the later offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm. The sentence for grievous bodily harm with intent, although stern, was warranted by the vicious, sustained and brutal assault and was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']