R v CJP

Case [2004] NSWCCA 188 16 June 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v CJP [2004] NSWCCA 188 revised - 25/06/2004

HEARING DATE(S): 26/05/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 June 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1; Simpson J at 2; Howie J at 3

DECISION: 1. The application for leave to appeal is refused; 2. The Crown appeal is allowed; 3. The sentences imposed in respect of counts 3, 4 and 5 are quashed; 4. In respect of charge 5 the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 5 1/2 years with a non-parole period of 4 years both such periods to commence on 28 November 2002. The non-parole period will expire on 27 November 2006; 5. In respect of charge 4 the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 1/2 years both such periods to commence on 28 November 2003. The non-parole period will expire on 27 May 2008; 6. In respect of charge 3 the responent is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 9 years with a non-parole period of 5 1/2 years both such periods to commence on 28 November 2005. The non-parole period will expire on 27 May 2011.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Crown appeal against sentence - child sexual assault offences - failure to cumulate some sentences - exceptionally serious offences - delay in appeal and unsatisfactory history of proceedings - insufficient to justify court not intervening.

LEGISLATION CITED: Justices Act 1902 - s 51A (now repealed)
Crimes Act 1900 - ss 61J, 61N(1), 66C(1)

CASES CITED: R v CJP [2003] NSWCCA 187
R v Wong and Leung [2002] NSWCCA 169
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 436
R v SY [2003] NSWCCA 291
Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
R v Gilmore (1979) 1 A Crim R 416
R v MM (2002) 135 A Crim R 431
R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 205 ALR 346
R v Hayes [2004] NSWCCA 156
R v Blanco (1999) 106 A Crim R 303
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 32

PARTIES :
Regina v CJP

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60021/04

COUNSEL: D. Woodburne - Crown
H. Dhanji - Respondent

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
S. O'Connor - Respondent

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/21/3265

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Sides DCJ

60021/04

HULME J
SIMPSON J
HOWIE J
WEDNESDAY 16 JUNE 2004

R v CJP

Judgment

1 HULME J: I agree with the orders proposed by Howie J and with his Honour’s reasons.

2 SIMPSON J: I agree with Howie J

3 HOWIE J: In this matter both the offender and Crown are dissatisfied with sentences imposed by Judge Sides QC in the Campbelltown District Court on 10 December 2003. Although there is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence, I think…

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 CJP

Details

AGLC: R v CJP [2004] NSWCCA 188
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 188
Decision Date: 16 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v CJP, the respondent was convicted of various child sexual assault offences. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the severity of the crimes committed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court considered the nature and severity of the offences, the principles of cumulative sentencing, and the impact of the delay in the appeal and the unsatisfactory history of the proceedings on the appropriateness of the sentence. The court needed to weigh these factors to decide whether the sentence was so inadequate that it warranted intervention.

The court found that the offences were exceptionally serious and that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes. Although the respondent had a history of offending and the appeal was delayed, these factors were not sufficient to prevent the court from intervening. The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and ordered a re-sentencing hearing to impose a more appropriate sentence. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for such serious offences are commensurate with their gravity.

Orders