Legal Research
Cases
R v Dennison

R v Dennison

Case [2011] NSWCCA 114 23 May 2011

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dennison [2011] NSWCCA 114
Hearing dates: 4 May 2011
Decision date: 23 May 2011
Before: Whealy JA at [1]
McCallum J at [2]
Schmidt J at [3]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - whether insufficient weight given to the offence taken into account pursuant to s 16BA of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - whether insufficient weight was given to specific deterrence - whether insufficient weight was given to the maximum penalty for offences - whether the finding that substantial concurrence of the sentences imposed for the offences of Using a Carriage Service to Make Available Child Pornography and Dealing in the Proceeds of Crime was necessary to avoid prospect of double punishment - whether sentence was manifestly inadequate - appeal dismissed
COSTS - application under either ss 6A or 6C of the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 - certificate refused
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Suitors' Fund Act 1951
Cases Cited: Re Attorney-General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW) (No 1 of 2002) [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2010) 56 NSWLR 146
Boreland v Docker (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 275
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Moradian [2010] NSWCCA 27
R v Huang; R v Siu [2007] NSWCCA 259
Lowndes v R [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140; (2010) 201 A Crim R 243
Nahlous v R [2010] NSWCCA 58; (2010) 201 A Crim R 150
Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Elphick [2010] NSWCCA 112
R v Hilton [2005] NSWCCA 317; (2005) 157 A Crim R 504
R v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370; (2005) 162 A Crim R 29
R v Gilfillan [2003] NSWCCA 102; (2003) 139 A Crim R 460
R v Lilley [2000] NSWCCA 57; (2000) 111 A Crim R 468
R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
R v Mara [2009] QCA 208; (2009) 196 A Crim R 506
R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272; (2006) 164 A Crim R 481
R v Oliver [2003] 1 Cr App 28
R v Pack [1999] NSWCCA 316
Whiley v R [2010] NSWCCA 53
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Appellant)
Paul Randal Dennison (Respondent)
Representation: Mr WG Roser SC (Appellant)
Mr Ertunc Ozen (Respondent)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant)
Benjamin & Leonardo Criminal Defence Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/234684 and 2009/60173
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2010-05-07 00:00:00

Before:

Blackmore DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/00060173 and 2009/00234684

Judgment

WHEALY JA: I agree with Schmidt J.

McCALLUM J: I agree with Schmidt J. The sentences imposed were undoubtedly lenient. Nonetheless, for the reasons given by her Honour, I am not persuaded that they entailed error.

SCHMIDT J

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 Dennison

Details

AGLC: R v Dennison [2011] NSWCCA 114
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 114
Decision Date: 23 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Dennison, appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the offences taken into account, the need for specific deterrence, and the maximum penalty for the offences. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the relevant factors in sentencing and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court needed to determine if the sentence imposed was proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes and if there was any error in the application of sentencing principles.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had given proper consideration to the relevant factors, including the offences taken into account, the need for specific deterrence, and the maximum penalty for the offences. The court held that the sentence was proportionate and not manifestly inadequate. The appeal was dismissed as there was no miscarriage of justice or error in the application of sentencing principles. Additionally, the court considered an application for costs under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 and found that a certificate for costs was not appropriate in this case.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court did not grant the application for costs under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951.

Orders