WM v R [2020] NSWCCA 96

WM v R [2020] NSWCCA 96

The sentencing judge did not err in considering the applicant's breach of trust, did not create an unjustified disparity between applicant and co-offender sentences under the parity principle, and imposed a sentence that was not manifestly excessive given the objective seriousness and sentencing principles.

Parties
Applicant: WM; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentence Appeal, Sexual Offences Against Children, Breach of Trust, Parity Principle, Manifest Excess
Criminal Law Sentence Appeal Sexual Offences Against Children Breach of Trust Parity Principle 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WM

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in weighing the applicant's breach of trust
  2. 2 Whether the parity principle required a greater distinction between the sentences of applicant and co-offender
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in considering the applicant's breach of trust, did not create an unjustified disparity between applicant and co-offender sentences under the parity principle, and imposed a sentence that was not manifestly excessive given the objective seriousness and sentencing principles.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal dismissed.