R v Rose [2024] NSWCCA 193

R v Rose [2024] NSWCCA 193

The Crown's concession that the assessment of objective seriousness as mid-range was open meant the particulars of ground 1 were immaterial. The sentencing judge's reasons demonstrated awareness of the violence involved and an appropriate assessment of seriousness. The imposition of an ICO was a lenient, but not manifestly inadequate, outcome in the circumstances, particularly after consideration of the Respondent's pre-sentence custody, rehabilitation, and mental health factors. The appeal was dismissed as the sentence was not plainly unjust or wholly unreasonable.

Parties
Crown: Rex; Respondent: Timothy John Rose
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Crown Sentencing Appeal / Appellate (court of Criminal Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Crown Appeals, Domestic Violence Offences, Manifest Inadequacy, Objective Seriousness, Intensive Correction Order
Criminal Law Sentencing Crown Appeals Domestic Violence Offences Manifest Inadequacy Objective Seriousness Intensive Correction Order

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Crown

Timothy John Rose

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Sentencing Appeal / Appellate (court of Criminal Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in her assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence by failing to find aggravation due to actual or threatened violence
  2. 2 Whether the Crown appeal should succeed on the ground the sentence is manifestly inadequate

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown's concession that the assessment of objective seriousness as mid-range was open meant the particulars of ground 1 were immaterial. The sentencing judge's reasons demonstrated awareness of the violence involved and an appropriate assessment of seriousness. The imposition of an ICO was a lenient, but not manifestly inadequate, outcome in the circumstances, particularly after consideration of the Respondent's pre-sentence custody, rehabilitation, and mental health factors. The appeal was dismissed as the sentence was not plainly unjust or wholly unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The s 5D Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) appeal is dismissed.