Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: LB v R [2019] NSWCCA 151 Hearing dates: 12 June 2019 Date of orders: 12 July 2019 Decision date: 12 July 2019 Before: Payne JA at [1]
Davies J at [2]
Button JJ at [79]Decision: (1) Extend time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal to 25 January 2019.
(2) Grant leave to appeal.
(3) Dismiss the appeal.Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against sentence – applicant sentenced after trial – applicant found guilty of two child sex offences contrary to ss 66A(1) and 61M(2) – two separate complainants – first complainant was the 8 year old sister of the applicant’s then partner – second complainant was the 5 year old daughter of the applicant’s then partner – touching and digital penetration – applicant sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine years – whether the s 66A sentence incorporated factual error – where the sentencing judge made erroneous factual finding as to bleeding caused by the offending – finding only one of the considerations taken into account when assessing objective seriousness – whether the sentencing judge erroneously assessed the objective seriousness of the offending – whether the sentencing judge erred in the weight she afforded to the standard non-parole period – whether the sentencing judge erroneously found that the applicant could address his rehabilitation needs in custody – whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate consideration to the causal role of substance addiction in the offending and the applicant’s disadvantaged background – whether special circumstances should have been found – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – no statistics or comparative cases were provided to support applicant’s high-level assertion that the sentence was plainly unreasonable and unjust – significant degree of concurrency between two individual sentences – no manifest excess found – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61M, 66A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 10A, 44, 166Cases Cited: Jiang v R [2010] NSWCCA 277
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
TS v R [2007] NSWCCA 194Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: LB (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
C Doosey (Applicant)
K Jeffreys (Respondent)
Johnston Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2015/287297 & 2016/223285 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of NSW
- Jurisdiction:
- Criminal
- Citation:
- Nil
- Date of Decision:
- Noman SC DCJ
- Before:
- 13 October 2017
- File Number(s):
- 2015/287297 & 2016/223285
Judgment
-
PAYNE JA: I agree with Davies J.
-
DAVIES J: The applicant was convicted after trial of the following two offences:
Count 1: Indecent assault of a child under the age of 16 years contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty for this offence is ten…
Continue reading LB v R
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- LB v R [2019] NSWCCA 151
- Case
- [2019] NSWCCA 151
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge made a factual error in her findings, whether she correctly assessed the objective seriousness of the offences, and whether she erred in the weight she gave to the standard non-parole period. The court also examined whether the sentencing judge correctly considered the role of substance addiction and the applicant's disadvantaged background in the offending, and whether special circumstances should have been found. Additionally, the court assessed whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The court found that although the sentencing judge made an erroneous factual finding regarding bleeding caused by the offending, this was only one of the considerations taken into account when assessing the objective seriousness. The court determined that the sentencing judge did not err in her assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending. The court further held that the sentencing judge did not err in the weight she afforded to the standard non-parole period and that the applicant could address his rehabilitation needs in custody. The court found no error in the sentencing judge's consideration of the causal role of substance addiction and the applicant's disadvantaged background. The court concluded that there were no special circumstances and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.