Button J at [1]; McNaughton J at [2]; R A Hulme AJ at [103]
Decision:
(1) Leave to file the appeal out of time granted.
(2) Leave to appeal allowed.
(3) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal – sentence appeal – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – whether sentencing judge failed to take into account a causal connection between youth or immaturity and offending – whether sentencing judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for finding of no causal connection between youth or immaturity and offending – aggravated sexual assault – aggravated break and enter and commit felony – significant delay between offending and sentencing – applicant’s youth at time of offending appreciated by sentencing judge – sentencing judge entitled to deal with issue of youth in the manner he did – indicative sentences not outside reasonable range – aggregate sentence not unreasonable or unjust – appeal dismissed.
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Carreno v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Carreno v The King [2023] NSWCCA 20
Case
[2023] NSWCCA 20
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Carreno v The King involved the appellant, Carreno, appealing against his sentence, contending that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Carreno was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and aggravated break and enter and commit felony, and had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period. The appeal centred around whether the sentence was excessively harsh and whether the sentencing judge failed to consider the causal connection between the appellant's youth or immaturity and his offending behaviour.
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account a causal connection between the appellant's youth or immaturity and his offending, and whether the sentencing judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for finding no causal connection between the appellant's youth or immaturity and his offending. The court also considered whether the indicative sentences and the aggregate sentence were outside the reasonable range or were unreasonable or unjust.
In its decision, the court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to deal with the issue of the appellant's youth in the manner that he did. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately appreciated the appellant's youth at the time of the offending and had not failed to take into account a causal connection between the appellant's youth or immaturity and his offending. The court also found that the sentencing judge had provided sufficient reasons for finding no causal connection between the appellant's youth or immaturity and his offending. The court further held that the indicative sentences and the aggregate sentence were not outside the reasonable range and were not unreasonable or unjust. The appeal was dismissed.