Pender v R

The appellant, Pender, was convicted of sexual assault and appealed against his sentence. The case came before the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales. The central issue in this appeal was whether the sentencing judge erred in considering the appellant's intoxication as self-induced, and whether the judge correctly determined that the appellant had actual knowledge, rather than an unreasonable belief, that the victim consented. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court first addressed the issue of self-induced intoxication. The appellant argued that his intoxication was not self-induced due to his history of addiction. However, the court found that the appellant's intoxication was self-induced because it was caused by his voluntary consumption of alcohol. The court held that a history of addiction does not automatically render intoxication involuntary. Next, the court considered whether the sentencing judge was correct in finding that the appellant had actual knowledge that the victim consented. The court concluded that the sentencing judge was correct in this regard, as the evidence demonstrated that the appellant had actual knowledge of the victim's lack of consent. Finally, the court assessed whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the severity of the offence and the need for deterrence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence. The court found no error in the sentencing judge's consideration of the appellant's intoxication or the determination of actual knowledge. Additionally, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and thus, the appeal was unsuccessful.