R v RKB (unreported, NSWCCA, 30 June 1992) R v Rushby [1999] NSWCCA 104 R v Lewis (unreported NSWCCA, 14 December 1993) R v Bus and S (unreported NSWCCA 3 November 1995) R v WKR (1993) 32 NSWLR 447 R v Oliver (1982) 7 A Crim R 174 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Bradley [1979] 2 NZLR 262 R v Visconti [1982] 2 NSWLR 104 R v Clarke [2001] NSWCCA 223 R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 152 R v Holder and Johnson [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368 R v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152 R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63 R v Lemene (2001) 118 A Crim R 131 R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66 Radich [1954] NZLR 86 Nekuda (1988) 39 A Crim R 5 R v Wong; R v Leung (1999) 48 NSWLR 340 R v Rushby (1977) 1 NSWLR 594 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Hartikainen (unreported, NSWCCA, 8 June 1993) R v Nichols (1991) 57 A Crim R 391 R v DAR (unreported NSWCCA, 2 October 1997) R v Mazzilli [2001] NSWCCA 117 Pham (1991) 55 A Crim R 128 R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 Griffiths v R (1971) 137 CLR 293 Peisley (1991) 58 A Crim R 167 R v Moon (2000) 117 A Crim R 497 R v Pawa [1978] 2 NZLR 190 R v Bloomfield (unreported, NSWCCA, 15 July 1998) R v Shorten (unreported, NSWCCA, 10 September 1997) R v Singh (unreported, NSWCCA, 16 December 1994) Talbot (unreported, NSWCCA, 19 December 1997) R v Agafili (unreported, NSWCCA, 1 May 1996) R v Brennan (unreported, NSWCCA, 29 May 1995) R v Harrison (1997) 93 A Crim R 314 R v McLear (unreported, NSWCCA, 1 September 1992) R v McLawrence (unreported, NSWCCA, 28 September 1995) R v Burns (unreported, NSWCCA, 21 September 1994) R v Baker (unreported, NSWCCA, 2 August 1994) Rose (unreported, NSWCCA, 23 May…
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 R v AEM
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v AEM [2002] NSWCCA 58
Case
[2002] NSWCCA 58
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of the Crown appealing against the sentence of AEM, the High Court of Australia was called upon to review the decision made by the lower court in relation to the sentence imposed on AEM for aggravated sexual assault. The case involved AEM being found guilty of sexually assaulting a minor, and the Crown arguing that the sentence imposed was too lenient and did not adequately reflect the severity of the crime. The appeal focused on the length and manner in which the sentences were ordered, as well as the principle of general deterrence in sentencing.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were appropriate in terms of their severity and whether they adequately reflected the totality of the crimes committed. The court also had to consider the principle of general deterrence in sentencing, as well as the importance of maintaining a consistent pattern of sentencing for similar offences. Furthermore, the court was required to determine whether the principle of double jeopardy applied, given that AEM had previously been acquitted of a similar offence, and whether any special circumstances were present that warranted a different approach to sentencing.
The High Court, in its decision, determined that the sentences imposed by the lower court were inadequate in reflecting the severity of the crimes committed. The court held that the principle of totality in sentencing required that the cumulative effect of multiple sentences be considered, and that the sentences imposed did not adequately reflect the totality of AEM's criminal conduct. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in sentencing and found that the sentences imposed were insufficient to achieve this objective. The court also noted that while double jeopardy might ordinarily prevent a second prosecution, it did not preclude the imposition of a more severe sentence in a subsequent proceeding. Finally, the court found that no special circumstances were present that would warrant a different approach to sentencing.
The High Court allowed the Crown's appeal, setting aside the original sentence and remitting the matter to the lower court for resentencing. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences imposed for aggravated sexual assault adequately reflect the severity of the crimes committed, and that the principle of general deterrence is given due consideration in the sentencing process.