R v MW NON PUBLICATION ORDER [2007] NSWCCA 291

R v MW NON PUBLICATION ORDER [2007] NSWCCA 291

The sentences were manifestly inadequate because the sentencing judge gave insufficient effect to the objective gravity of the offences, improperly treated the respondent's drug intoxication as supporting further mitigation, failed to impose an additional penalty for the Form 1 matter, and erred in imposing wholly concurrent sentences despite the separate and serious character of the sexual assault and choking offences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence Pursuant to S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court on 23 March 2007
Outcome
Crown appeal upheld; sentences imposed on 23 March 2007 quashed; respondent resentenced.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'aggravated Sexual Assault Without Consent' 'attempt to Choke With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'form 1 Offences' 'drug Intoxication and Sentencing' 'concurrency and Totality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'aggravated Sexual Assault Without Consent' 'attempt to Choke With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'form 1 Offences' 'drug Intoxication and Sentencing' 'concurrency and Totality']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence Pursuant to S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court on 23 March 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed in the District Court were manifestly inadequate.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave too much weight to the respondent's subjective circumstances, including drug intoxication." 'Whether the sentencing judge properly assessed the objective seriousness of the offences and the standard non-parole period for the s 61J offence.' 'Whether wholly concurrent sentences failed to reflect the seriousness of each offence.' 'Whether an additional penalty was required for the Form 1 matter when sentencing for the s 37 offence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences were manifestly inadequate because the sentencing judge gave insufficient effect to the objective gravity of the offences, improperly treated the respondent's drug intoxication as supporting further mitigation, failed to impose an additional penalty for the Form 1 matter, and erred in imposing wholly concurrent sentences despite the separate and serious character of the sexual assault and choking offences.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal upheld; sentences imposed on 23 March 2007 quashed; respondent resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Uphold the Crown appeal and quash the sentences imposed on the respondent on 23 March 2007 in the District Court.' 'For count 1 on the indictment the offence of aggravated sexual assault without consent the respondent is sentenced to a fixed term of 6 years commencing on 8 August 2005 and expiring on 7 August...