Peters v R [2018] NSWCCA 126

Peters v R [2018] NSWCCA 126

The sentencing judge erred by not applying the utilitarian discount for the plea of guilty in relation to the Commonwealth offence in accordance with Xiao v R, and by imposing total accumulation of sentences after indicating partial accumulation, warranting the exercise of appellate sentencing discretion afresh which resulted in the applicant being resentenced with appropriate discounts and adjusted sentence concurrency.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed, sentences quashed, applicant resentenced
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'possession of Child Abuse Material' 'accessing Child Pornography' 'utilitarian Discount for Plea of Guilty' 'totality Principle' 'objective Seriousness' 'accumulation and Concurrency of Sentences']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'possession of Child Abuse Material' 'accessing Child Pornography' 'utilitarian Discount for Plea of Guilty' 'totality Principle' 'objective Seriousness' 'accumulation and Concurrency of Sentences']

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 / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in consideration of the plea of guilty in relation to the Commonwealth offence' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the totality principle' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by not applying the utilitarian discount for the plea of guilty in relation to the Commonwealth offence in accordance with Xiao v R, and by imposing total accumulation of sentences after indicating partial accumulation, warranting the exercise of appellate sentencing discretion afresh which resulted in the applicant being resentenced with appropriate discounts and adjusted sentence concurrency.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, sentences quashed, applicant resentenced

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal against sentence allowed.' 'The sentences imposed in the District Court on 31 August 2017 are quashed.' 'For possession of child abuse material: non-parole period of 9 months with a balance of term of 9 months, sentence to date from 28 August 2017, non-parole period to expire 27...