Price AJA at [1]; Garling J at [3]; Rigg J at [4].
Decision:
1. Allow the appeal;
2. Quash the sentence imposed on the respondent in the District Court on 26 April 2024, and in lieu thereof, sentence the respondent to a term of imprisonment of 15 years with a non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months, commencing on 20 April 2021. The date the respondent is first eligible for release to parole is 19 July 2032.
Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Crown appeal against sentence — Persistent sexual abuse of a child — Approach to assessment of objective seriousness — Manifest inadequacy — Appeal allowed — Respondent resentenced
[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 Fisher
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Fisher [2024] NSWCCA 191
Case
[2024] NSWCCA 191
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Fisher, was convicted of multiple counts of persistent sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with parole eligibility. The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The High Court of Australia considered the appeal, examining the principles guiding the assessment of the objective seriousness of criminal conduct and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.
The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the gravity of the crimes committed. The court had to consider the nature of the offences, the impact on the victim, and whether the sentence imposed reflected the objective seriousness of the crimes. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the severity of the offences, while Fisher maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.
The court found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. It emphasised the importance of considering the objective seriousness of the offences, particularly in cases involving persistent sexual abuse of a child. The court concluded that the sentence did not sufficiently reflect the gravity of the crimes and the need for general deterrence. The appeal was allowed, and Fisher was resentenced to a term of imprisonment with a later date for parole eligibility. The court's decision underscored the necessity for sentences to appropriately reflect the severity of serious crimes, particularly those involving vulnerable victims.