CPW v R

The appellant was convicted of a number of sexual offences involving children, including offences committed over twenty years ago. The appellant sought to have the sentence reviewed by the Court of Appeal. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge. The primary judge had failed to adequately consider the principle of accumulation of sentences in relation to the appellant’s offending. The principle of accumulation of sentences provides that a court must consider the cumulative effect of multiple sentences when sentencing a defendant for multiple offences. The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge should have considered the effect of the appellant’s past offending history, and the sentences imposed for that history, when considering the appropriate sentence for the current offending. The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had failed to give adequate weight to the principle of accumulation of sentences and this was an error of law. The Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the sentencing judge to re-sentence the appellant.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had adequately considered the principle of accumulation of sentences. The Court of Appeal held that the principle of accumulation of sentences requires a court to consider the cumulative effect of multiple sentences when sentencing a defendant for multiple offences. The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had failed to adequately consider the principle of accumulation of sentences when sentencing the appellant. The Court of Appeal held that this was an error of law and remitted the matter to the sentencing judge. The Court of Appeal held that the principle of accumulation of sentences is a well-established principle of sentencing and that it must be considered by a court when sentencing a defendant for multiple offences. The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had failed to give adequate weight to this principle and this was an error of law. The Court of Appeal held that the matter should be remitted to the sentencing judge to re-sentence the appellant.