CT v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 15 24 February 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: CT v R [2017] NSWCCA 15
Hearing dates: 15 February 2017
Date of orders: 24 February 2017
Decision date: 24 February 2017
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Johnson J at [87]
Latham J at [88]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted.
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against sentence – seven historic sex offences – complainant aged between 6 and 10 at time of offending – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether sentencing practice and patterns of the late 1980s taken into account in sentence – whether principle of general deterrence properly applied – whether appropriate weight given to applicant’s good character and his voluntary cessation of offending – whether complainant’s consent a relevant consideration – application for leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – ss 61E(1), 67/66A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 21A(2)(g), 44(2)
Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth)
Probation and Parole Act 1983 (NSW)
Cases Cited: AJB v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 51; 169 A Crim R 32
Cahyadi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Daniel Clayton Scott v R [2011] NSWCCA 221; 213 A Crim R 407
Franklin v R [2013] NSWCCA 122
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218
Magnuson v R [2013] NSWCCA 50
MPB v R [2013] NSWCCA 213
Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; 131 CLR 623
PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84; 234 A Crim R 576
R v BA [2014] NSWCCA 148
R v Burns [2007] NSWCCA 228
R v Dent(Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 14 March 1991, unrep
R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130
Regina v Bacon [2000] NSWCCA 549; 120 A Crim R 28
Regina v Lopez [1999] NSWCCA 245
Regina v MJR [2002] NSWCCA 129; 54 NSWLR 368
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; 206 CLR 267
Shannon v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 39
Vuni v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 171
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: CT – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation: Counsel:
M Ramage QC – Applicant
S Hughes – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
P Green – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2013/362767
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

19 December 2014

Before:

Huggett DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/362767

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offences and sentence

The applicant was found guilty after a trial by jury of seven child sexual offences committed against his stepdaughter. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by Huggett DCJ on 19 December 2014. The offences of which the applicant was convicted were as follows:

Count 1 – Indecent assault on child under 16 years (6 years) – s 61E(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (maximum penalty of 6 years imprisonment).

Count…

Grounds of appeal

[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 CT v R

Details

AGLC: CT v R [2017] NSWCCA 15
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 15
Decision Date: 24 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of CT v R was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant, CT, sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed for seven historic sexual offences against a complainant who was aged between 6 and 10 at the time of the offending. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentencing practices and patterns of the late 1980s were adequately considered during the sentencing, if the principle of general deterrence was correctly applied, and if appropriate weight was given to the applicant’s good character and voluntary cessation of offending. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the complainant’s consent was a relevant consideration in the sentencing process.

The court identified that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently consider the sentencing practices and patterns of the late 1980s, nor did the judge appropriately weigh the principle of general deterrence against the specific circumstances of the case. The High Court found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive, as it did not adequately reflect the applicant’s good character and his voluntary cessation of offending. However, despite these errors, the court concluded that the overall sentence did not depart to such an extent from the appropriate range that it could be considered manifestly excessive. Therefore, while the application for leave to appeal was granted, the appeal itself was dismissed.

The court's reasoning led to a nuanced outcome, recognising the gravity of the offences and the impact on the complainant but also acknowledging the errors in the sentencing process. The court's final orders were to grant leave to appeal but to dismiss the appeal, thus affirming the sentence as imposed by the lower court.

Orders