LB v R

Case [2019] NSWCCA 151


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, 166
Cases 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 194
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: LB (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
C Doosey (Applicant)
K Jeffreys (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
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

  1. PAYNE JA:   I agree with Davies J.

  2. 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

Details
AGLC
LB v R [2019] NSWCCA 151
Case
[2019] NSWCCA 151
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of LB v R, the applicant was sentenced following a trial in which they were found guilty of two child sex offences. The first offence involved the 8-year-old sister of the applicant's then partner, and the second involved the 5-year-old daughter of the applicant's then partner. The offences included touching and digital penetration. The applicant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 13 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine years. The applicant appealed the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge made a factual error, assessed the objective seriousness of the offending incorrectly, and failed to adequately consider certain mitigating factors.

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.