ZZ v R [2013] NSWCCA 83

ZZ v R [2013] NSWCCA 83

Errors were made in the assessment of objective seriousness for Count 1 and the application of the standard non-parole period, resulting in excessive rigid sentencing contrary to Muldrock v The Queen. The Court, re-exercising the sentencing discretion under s.6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912, determines lesser sentences are warranted while ensuring sentences remain proportionate to the offence gravity and statutory requirements.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; sexual assault sentences quashed and resentenced; sentence for obtaining valuable thing by deception confirmed.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'sexual Assault' 'aggravated Sexual Assault' 'objective Seriousness' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'manifest Excess' 'intoxication' 'domestic Violence' 'discount for Assistance' 'instinctive Synthesis']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'sexual Assault' 'aggravated Sexual Assault' 'objective Seriousness' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'manifest Excess' 'intoxication' 'domestic Violence' 'discount for Assistance' 'instinctive Synthesis']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing Judge erred in assessing objective seriousness of Count 1' 'Whether the sentencing Judge erred in applying standard non-parole periods to sexual assault offences' 'Whether the sentences for sexual assault offences are manifestly excessive' 'Whether lesser sentences should be imposed under s.6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912']

Ratio Decidendi

Errors were made in the assessment of objective seriousness for Count 1 and the application of the standard non-parole period, resulting in excessive rigid sentencing contrary to Muldrock v The Queen. The Court, re-exercising the sentencing discretion under s.6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912, determines lesser sentences are warranted while ensuring sentences remain proportionate to the offence gravity and statutory requirements.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; sexual assault sentences quashed and resentenced; sentence for obtaining valuable thing by deception confirmed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed in part.' 'Sentence of 17 June 2011 for obtaining valuable thing by deception confirmed (with Form 1 offences taken into account).' 'Sentences under s.61I and s.61J Crimes Act 1900 quashed.' 'For Count 1, sexual intercourse without consent (s.61I Crimes Act 1900):...