Black v R [2013] NSWCCA 265

Black v R [2013] NSWCCA 265

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because no Muldrock error was established when the sentencing reasons were read as a whole, and although the fixed terms imposed for counts 1, 2 and 6 were contrary to law, resentencing would not alter the aggregate non-parole period or aggregate sentence and no lesser sentence was warranted in law given the seriousness, premeditated and degrading nature of the offending and the sentencing judge's consideration of subjective factors.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Application Following Sentence Imposed by Coolahan DCJ on 11 December 2008
Outcome
Application for an extension of time dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'fixed Terms of Imprisonment' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'act of Indecency']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['extension of Time' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'fixed Terms of Imprisonment' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'act of Indecency']

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

Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Application Following Sentence Imposed by Coolahan DCJ on 11 December 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in his approach to the standard non-parole period legislation in light of Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing fixed terms of imprisonment for counts 1, 2 and 6, offences for which a standard non-parole period was prescribed.' 'Whether, despite sentencing error on counts 1, 2 and 6, some lesser sentence was warranted in law so as to justify an extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because no Muldrock error was established when the sentencing reasons were read as a whole, and although the fixed terms imposed for counts 1, 2 and 6 were contrary to law, resentencing would not alter the aggregate non-parole period or aggregate sentence and no lesser sentence was warranted in law given the seriousness, premeditated and degrading nature of the offending and the sentencing judge's consideration of subjective factors.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time is dismissed.']