Legal Research
Cases
Ingham v R

Ingham v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 123 10 July 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Ingham v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCCA 123

Hearing Date(s): 5/05/2014

Decision Date: 10 July 2014

Before: Basten JA at [1];
Fullerton J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [48]

Decision:
Allow the appeal.

The sentences imposed in the District Court on 19 September 2008 are quashed.

In lieu, the following sentences are imposed:

For count 3 (an offence contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act committed against CBS) a non-parole period of 3 years to commence on 20 October 2006 and to expire on 19 October 2009, with an additional term of 1 year to commence on 20 October 2009 and to expire on 19 October 2010.

For count 8 (an offence contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act committed against JAW) a non-parole period of 3 years to commence on 20 October 2006 and to expire on 19 October 2009, with an additional term of 1 year to commence on 20 October 2009 and to expire on 19 October 2010.

For count 9 (an offence contrary to s 66A of the Crimes Act committed against JAW) a non-parole period of 9 years to commence on 20 October 2006 and to expire on 19 October 2015, with an additional term of 4 years to commence on 20 October 2015 and to expire on 19 October 2019.

For count 10 (an offence contrary to s 66A of the Crimes Act committed against JAW) a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months to commence on 20 April 2009 and to expire on 19 October 2016, with an additional term of 2 years and 6 months to commence on 20 October 2016 and to expire on 19 April 2019.

For count 11 (an offence contrary to s 66A of the Crimes Act committed against JAW) a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months to commence on 20 April 2009 and to expire on 19 October 2016, with an additional term of 2 years and 6 months to commence on 20 October 2016 and to expire on 19 April 2019.

For count 12 (an offence contrary to s 66A of the Crimes Act committed against JAW) a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months to commence on 20 April 2009 and to expire on 19 October 2016, with an additional term of 2 years and 6 months to commence on 20 October 2016 and to expire on 19 April 2019.

For count 7 (an offence contrary to s 66A of the Crimes Act committed against JAW) a non-parole period of 6 years to commence on 20 October 2010 and to expire on 19 October 2016, with an additional term of 2 years to commence on 20 October 2016 and to expire on 19 October 2018.

For count 5 (an offence contrary to s 66A of the Crimes Act committed against CBS) a non-parole period of 9 years to commence on 20 October 2010 and to expire on…

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 Ingham v R

Details

AGLC: Ingham v R [2014] NSWCCA 123
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 123
Decision Date: 10 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ingham v R is an appeal against sentence in which the Court of Criminal Appeal considered the defendant's sentence for multiple counts of sexual assault against a child under the age of 10. The Court of Criminal Appeal was referred to the case under Part 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. The defendant conceded a Muldrock error, which acknowledged that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The key legal issues before the Court were whether a lesser sentence was warranted at law and the relevance of the defendant's post offence conduct and custodial conditions to the re-sentencing process.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of the term was not a rigid rule, and the sentence could be adjusted to ensure it was manifestly inadequate. The Court considered the severity of the crimes, the impact on the victims, and the defendant's post offence conduct. The defendant had shown remorse and had been cooperative with authorities, which was taken into account. The Court determined that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes, and a re-sentencing was necessary.

In light of the considerations above, the Court of Criminal Appeal set aside the original sentence and imposed a new sentence that better reflected the gravity of the defendant's crimes and the need for general and specific deterrence. The new sentence included a non-parole period that was deemed appropriate by the Court, taking into account the statutory ratio and the other relevant factors. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for such serious crimes adequately reflect their gravity and the need to protect the community.

Orders