Harrison CJ at CL at [1]; N Adams J at [2]; Dhanji J at [201].
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Allow the appeal.
(3) Quash the sentence imposed by Judge King SC on 9 June 2023.
(4) In lieu thereof, sentence the applicant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 8 years to commence on 4 November 2021 and expire on 3 November 2029. The non-parole period of 4 years and 9 months will expire on 3 August 2026 and the applicant is eligible for release on parole on that date.
Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – whether latent error in indicative sentences – whether inadequate reasons in arriving at indicative sentences – whether adequate assessment of objective seriousness of individual offences – finding that sentencing judge did not individually assess criminality of each offence – resentence
[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 Dorsett v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dorsett v The King [2024] NSWCCA 192
Case
[2024] NSWCCA 192
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent, Dorsett, against his sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The appeal was brought under section 17 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), which allows for appeals against sentences on the basis of latent error. Dorsett was convicted of two counts of rape, one count of false imprisonment, and one count of indecent assault. The legal issues before the court were whether there was a latent error in the indicative sentences, whether the sentencing judge provided adequate reasons for arriving at the indicative sentences, and whether the sentencing judge adequately assessed the objective seriousness of each individual offence.
The court found that there was a latent error in the indicative sentences as the sentencing judge did not individually assess the criminality of each offence. The court found that the sentencing judge did not consider the individual circumstances of each offence and instead relied on a global assessment of the criminality of the offences. The court also found that the sentencing judge did not provide adequate reasons for arriving at the indicative sentences, as the reasons were vague and did not adequately explain how the indicative sentences were arrived at. The court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately assess the objective seriousness of each individual offence, as the sentencing judge did not consider the individual circumstances of each offence.
As a result of the court's findings, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge for resentencing. The court ordered that the sentencing judge consider the individual circumstances of each offence and provide adequate reasons for arriving at the indicative sentences. The court also ordered that the sentencing judge adequately assess the objective seriousness of each individual offence. The court did not provide any specific orders regarding the length of the sentence, leaving that decision to the sentencing judge.