Actions
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Statutory Material Cited
0
-
R v Clarkson
[2024] NSWDC 283
Citation 1
(Para 7)
…t is for this reason that a child’s consent is more accurately referred to as “apparent” or “ostensible” consent. [12] Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361, pg. 364 at [3].…
-
Clarkson v The Queen
[2011] VSCA 157
Citation 2
(Para 7)
…meaningful consent. It is for this reason that a child’s consent is more accurately referred to as “apparent” or “ostensible” consent. [12] Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361, pg. 364 at [3].…
-
R v Jones
[2004] VSCA 68
Citation 3
(Para 9)
…that all the offending encompassed in each of the rolled up charges occurred on the same day,[14] rather than over an extended period. [13] R v Jones [2004] VSCA 68 at [13]. [14]Often in quick succession.…
-
Director of Public Prosecutions v Farrell
[2020] VCC 818
Citation 4
(Para 19)
…[2016] VCC 1884; DPP v Bell [2017] VCC 1588; DPP v Stockton [2017] VCC 1726; DPP v Wright [2017] VCC 607; DPP v Grant [2018] VCC 1346; DPP v Farrell [2020] VCC 818. However, I am not precluded from considering these cases in respect of relevant sentencing principles.…
-
Director of Public Prosecutions v Grant
[2018] VCC 1346
Citation 5
(Para 19)
…rs: DPP v Stewart (a pseudonym) [2016] VCC 1884; DPP v Bell [2017] VCC 1588; DPP v Stockton [2017] VCC 1726; DPP v Wright [2017] VCC 607; DPP v Grant [2018] VCC 1346; DPP v Farrell [2020] VCC 818. However, I am not precluded from considering these cases in respect of relevant sentencing principles.…
-
Director of Public Prosecutions v Stockton
[2017] VCC 1726
Citation 6
(Para 19)
…fore, not considered the following as sentencing comparators: DPP v Stewart (a pseudonym) [2016] VCC 1884; DPP v Bell [2017] VCC 1588; DPP v Stockton [2017] VCC 1726; DPP v Wright [2017] VCC 607; DPP v Grant [2018] VCC 1346; DPP v Farrell [2020] VCC 818. However, I am not precluded from considering these cases in…
-
Director of Public Prosecutions v Bell
[2017] VCC 1588
Citation 7
(Para 19)
…te disposition. [18]I have therefore, not considered the following as sentencing comparators: DPP v Stewart (a pseudonym) [2016] VCC 1884; DPP v Bell [2017] VCC 1588; DPP v Stockton [2017] VCC 1726; DPP v Wright [2017] VCC 607; DPP v Grant [2018] VCC 1346; DPP v Farrell [2020] VCC 818. However, I am not precluded…
-
Director of Public Prosecutions v Lily Wright
[2017] VCC 607
Citation 8
(Para 19)
…wing as sentencing comparators: DPP v Stewart (a pseudonym) [2016] VCC 1884; DPP v Bell [2017] VCC 1588; DPP v Stockton [2017] VCC 1726; DPP v Wright [2017] VCC 607; DPP v Grant [2018] VCC 1346; DPP v Farrell [2020] VCC 818. However, I am not precluded from considering these cases in respect of relevant sentencin…
-
DPP v Stewart (a pseudonym)
[2016] VCC 1884
Citation 9
(Para 19)
…r was no longer an appropriate disposition. [18]I have therefore, not considered the following as sentencing comparators: DPP v Stewart (a pseudonym) [2016] VCC 1884; DPP v Bell [2017] VCC 1588; DPP v Stockton [2017] VCC 1726; DPP v Wright [2017] VCC 607; DPP v Grant [2018] VCC 1346; DPP v Farrell [2020] VCC 818.…