WW v R [2023] NSWCCA 311

WW v R [2023] NSWCCA 311

No House v The King error or manifest excess was established. The sentencing judge properly took into account the applicant's age for the first offence (sequence 5), mental health, and claimed history of childhood abuse, and was not obliged, in the circumstances, to apply mitigation or lessen deterrence beyond what was done. Complaints about weight afforded to these features do not found appealable error. Sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence; Decision on Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'historical Child Sexual Assault' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'moral Culpability' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'mental Illness in Sentencing' 'delay Between Offence and Prosecution' 'childhood Sexual Abuse and Mitigation']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'historical Child Sexual Assault' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'moral Culpability' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'mental Illness in Sentencing' 'delay Between Offence and Prosecution' 'childhood Sexual Abuse and Mitigation']

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; Decision on Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in the assessment of the applicant's youth at the time of offending in mitigation" "Whether the sentencing judge failed to take proper account of the applicant's mental illness at sentence" "Whether the applicant's history of childhood abuse should have mitigated moral culpability" "Whether insufficient/lower weight should have been given to general/specific deterrence due to applicant's circumstances (youth, mental health, delayed prosecution, cessation of offending, remorse)"]

Ratio Decidendi

No House v The King error or manifest excess was established. The sentencing judge properly took into account the applicant's age for the first offence (sequence 5), mental health, and claimed history of childhood abuse, and was not obliged, in the circumstances, to apply mitigation or lessen deterrence beyond what was done. Complaints about weight afforded to these features do not found appealable error. Sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal is dismissed.']