Franklin v R

In Franklin v R, the Court of Appeal was asked to review the sentence imposed on the applicant by the Supreme Court for multiple offences of child sexual assault and possession of child abuse material. The applicant had committed these offences against an extended family member over a prolonged period. The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had erred by making a blanket assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending without considering the individual offences separately. The Court of Appeal further found that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately consider the abuse of a position of trust, which was an element of some of the offences, and the fact that some of the offences were committed in the home of the victim. The Court of Appeal found that these factors were significant aggravating factors that should have been taken into account in the sentencing process.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately explain why the factors considered were aggravating and how they contributed to the overall seriousness of the offending. The Court of Appeal found that this was an error of law that required the sentence to be set aside and the applicant to be resentenced. The Court of Appeal also found that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered the principles of proportionality and deterrence in imposing the sentence. The Court of Appeal found that these principles were important in ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offending and that it served to deter the applicant and others from committing similar offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered the impact of the offending on the victim and her family. The Court of Appeal found that this was an important factor in determining the appropriate sentence. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the seriousness of the offending. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence should have been higher to reflect the objective seriousness of the offending and to serve as a deterrent to the applicant and others. The Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for the applicant to be resentenced.

The Court of Appeal made it clear that the sentencing judge should consider each offence separately and assess its individual seriousness before making a blanket assessment of the overall seriousness of the offending. The Court of Appeal also found that the sentencing judge should have adequately explained why the factors considered were aggravating and how they contributed to the overall seriousness of the offending. The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge should have also adequately considered the principles of proportionality and deterrence in imposing the sentence. The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge should have adequately considered the impact of the offending on the victim and her family. Finally, the Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the seriousness of the offending.