Leeming JA at [1] R A Hulme J at [2] Beech-Jones J at [3]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL APPEAL – Crown appeal – sexual assaults upon children – five offences – offender under 18 when some offences committed – offences discovered and prosecuted when offender an adult – whether sentencing judge erred in affording Ellis discount – necessity to comply with s 23(2) of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act – error made out – whether sentencing judge erred in assessing objective seriousness of offences – error established in relation to one offence – whether sentencing judge erred in referring to sentencing regime apposite to juveniles if offences discovered earlier – no error in doing so but sentencing judge misstated effect of sentencing provisions for children – whether sentencing judge double counted for offender’s youth – no error established – whether sentencing judge erred in approach to accumulation – no error established – whether individual sentences manifestly inadequate – not established – appeal dismissed
[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 R v AA
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v AA [2017] NSWCCA 84
Case
[2017] NSWCCA 84
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this matter, the appellant, a person who had been found guilty of committing multiple sexual offences against children, sought to appeal the sentences imposed by the trial judge. The appellant was convicted of five separate sexual offences against children, some of which were committed when the offender was under the age of 18. The offences came to light and were prosecuted when the offender was an adult. The appellant challenged the sentences on several grounds, including whether the trial judge erred in affording a discount for the appellant's age, whether the trial judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences, and whether the trial judge erred in referring to the sentencing regime applicable to juveniles.
The court examined each of the grounds of appeal in turn. In relation to the first ground, the court found that the trial judge had erred in affording a discount for the appellant's age, as the trial judge had failed to comply with the relevant statutory provisions. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in assessing the objective seriousness of one of the offences. However, the court found no error in the trial judge's reference to the sentencing regime applicable to juveniles, although the trial judge had misstated the effect of the relevant provisions. The court found no error in the trial judge's approach to accumulation, and found that the individual sentences were not manifestly inadequate.
The appeal was ultimately dismissed. The court found that, while some errors had been made in the sentencing process, they did not warrant a reduction in the sentences imposed. The appellant's conviction and sentences were therefore upheld.