TU v R [2014] NSWCCA 155

TU v R [2014] NSWCCA 155

The sentencing judge did not err in declining to find the second offence was isolated, nor in relation to sentencing statistics or Ellis discount. There was error in failure to address prospects of re-offending and rehabilitation, but no lesser sentence was warranted in law, so the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: TU; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Sexual Assault, Sentencing, Ellis Discount, Rehabilitation, Remorse, Manifest Excess
Criminal Law Child Sexual Assault Sentencing Ellis Discount Rehabilitation Remorse 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TU

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether sentencing judge erred in finding second offence was not isolated
  2. 2 whether alleged use of wrong statistics constituted error
  3. 3 whether insufficient Ellis discount was given

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in declining to find the second offence was isolated, nor in relation to sentencing statistics or Ellis discount. There was error in failure to address prospects of re-offending and rehabilitation, but no lesser sentence was warranted in law, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • leave to appeal be granted
  • the appeal be dismissed