R v Scavera
Case
•
[2016] NSWCCA 145
•28 July 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Scavera [2016] NSWCCA 145
[2016] NSWCCA 145
28 July 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Scavera, the appellant, Scavera, was convicted of aggravated indecent assault of a person under the age of 16 and aggravated sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10. The Crown appealed the sentence imposed by the primary judge, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria.
The appeal raised several legal issues. The Crown contended that the sentencing judge had not correctly assessed the objective seriousness of the indecent assault offence and that the sentences imposed for the sexual intercourse offences did not adequately reflect their objective seriousness. It was further argued that the sentencing judge had erred in considering the appellant's likelihood of re-offending and prospects of rehabilitation. The Crown also submitted that the sentencing judge had erred by failing to accumulate the sentences for the separate offences.
The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the arguments made by both parties. The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in not correctly assessing the objective seriousness of the indecent assault offence, and that the sentences for the sexual intercourse offences did not adequately reflect their objective seriousness. The court also found that the sentencing judge had erred in the way he had considered the appellant's likelihood of re-offending and prospects of rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and ordered a re-sentencing hearing.
The Court of Criminal Appeal ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced by a different judge, taking into account the errors identified in the appeal. The court emphasised the importance of correctly assessing the objective seriousness of each offence, the need for sentences to reflect that seriousness, and the proper consideration of the appellant's likelihood of re-offending and prospects of rehabilitation. The court also directed that the sentences for the separate offences should be accumulated.
The appeal raised several legal issues. The Crown contended that the sentencing judge had not correctly assessed the objective seriousness of the indecent assault offence and that the sentences imposed for the sexual intercourse offences did not adequately reflect their objective seriousness. It was further argued that the sentencing judge had erred in considering the appellant's likelihood of re-offending and prospects of rehabilitation. The Crown also submitted that the sentencing judge had erred by failing to accumulate the sentences for the separate offences.
The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the arguments made by both parties. The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in not correctly assessing the objective seriousness of the indecent assault offence, and that the sentences for the sexual intercourse offences did not adequately reflect their objective seriousness. The court also found that the sentencing judge had erred in the way he had considered the appellant's likelihood of re-offending and prospects of rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and ordered a re-sentencing hearing.
The Court of Criminal Appeal ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced by a different judge, taking into account the errors identified in the appeal. The court emphasised the importance of correctly assessing the objective seriousness of each offence, the need for sentences to reflect that seriousness, and the proper consideration of the appellant's likelihood of re-offending and prospects of rehabilitation. The court also directed that the sentences for the separate offences should be accumulated.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Sentencing
-
Aggravated & Exemplary Damages
-
Res Judicata
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Scavera [2016] NSWCCA 145
Most Recent Citation
DR v R [2022] NSWCCA 151
Cases Citing This Decision
14
Cheung v The The Queen
[2022] NSWCCA 168
DR v R
[2022] NSWCCA 151
Foaiaulima v R
[2020] NSWCCA 270
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
3
R v King
[2009] NSWCCA 117
Mulato v R
[2006] NSWCCA 282
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39