Harrison CJ at CL at [1]; Hamill J at [7]; N Adams J at [85]
Decision:
(1) Allow the appeal.
(2) Quash the sentence imposed by Williams DCJ on 15 December 2023.
(3) In lieu thereof sentence the respondent to an aggregate sentence of 5 years and 9 months to commence on 25 March 2022 and expire on 24 December 2027. The non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months is to commence on 25 March 2022 and expire on 24 September 2025.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – prosecution appeal – child sexual offences – whether aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate – objective gravity of the crime – whether Court should exercise residual discretion not to intervene
[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 Carey
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Carey [2024] NSWCCA 90
Case
[2024] NSWCCA 90
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Carey, the defendant, Carey, was convicted of various child sexual offences. The prosecution appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that the aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which had to determine whether the Court should exercise its residual discretion not to intervene and allow the appeal to proceed. The case centred on the objective gravity of the crimes committed by Carey and the proportionality of the sentence imposed.
The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal were whether the aggregate sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate, and whether the Court should exercise its residual discretion to allow the appeal to proceed. The Court had to consider the objective gravity of the crimes committed by Carey and whether the sentence imposed adequately reflected the seriousness of the offences. The Court also had to consider whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted the exercise of its residual discretion.
The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the aggregate sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate. The Court found that the objective gravity of the crimes committed by Carey warranted a more severe sentence. The Court also found that the trial judge had not adequately taken into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The Court exercised its residual discretion to allow the appeal to proceed and remitted the matter to the trial judge for re-sentencing. The Court emphasised the importance of imposing sentences that reflect the objective gravity of the crimes committed and the need for general deterrence.
The final orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal were that the appeal be allowed, the sentence imposed by the trial judge be set aside, and the matter be remitted to the trial judge for re-sentencing. The Court emphasised the importance of imposing sentences that adequately reflect the seriousness of child sexual offences and the need for general deterrence. The Court also emphasised the need for trial judges to carefully consider the objective gravity of the crimes committed when imposing sentences.