Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym)Citation:[2017] HCA 41Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Gordon JJDate:11 Oct 2017Case Number:M1/2017Read more

Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym)Citation:[2017] HCA 41Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Gordon JJDate:11 Oct 2017Case Number:M1/2017Read more

The Court held that while the sentence was not wholly outside the permissible range, the current sentencing practices were so low as to reveal an error in principle, justifying appellate intervention to correct the error reflected in the sentence under appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Unknown (Crown); Respondent: Unknown (Accused)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Incest, Sentencing Practices, Manifest Inadequacy, Appellate Review
Criminal Law Sentencing Incest Sentencing Practices Manifest Inadequacy Appellate Review

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown (Crown)

Appellant

Unknown (Accused)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for incest was manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Whether current sentencing practices justified appellate intervention
  3. 3 Interpretation of s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that while the sentence was not wholly outside the permissible range, the current sentencing practices were so low as to reveal an error in principle, justifying appellate intervention to correct the error reflected in the sentence under appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Sentence set aside
  • Matter remitted for re-sentencing in accordance with correct principles