SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | R v TL |
Citation: | [2017] ACTCA 18 |
Hearing Dates: | 3 May 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 26 May 2016 |
Before: | Burns, Mossop and Collier JJ |
Decision: | The appeal is dismissed. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court – offences against the person – sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years – act of indecency on a person under 16 years – plea of guilty – crown appeal against sentence – manifestly inadequate – consider sentencing remarks as a whole – not so lenient as to warrant the intervention of the court – appeal dismissed. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act1900 (ACT) ss 55(2), 61(2) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 33(1)(m), Chapter 8A |
Cases Cited: | Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2012] HCA 1; 244 CLR 638 |
Parties: | The Queen (Appellant) TL (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr J White SC (Appellant) Mr J Lawton (Respondent) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecution (Appellant) Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Respondent) | |
File Numbers: | ACTCA 52 of 2016 |
Decision under appeal: | Court: Supreme Court Before: Justice Refshauge Date of Decision: 22 September 2016 Case Title: R v TL (No 2) Citation: [2016] ACTSC 289 |
THE COURT:
On 22 September 2016, the respondent was sentenced by the primary judge with regard to nine offences arising out of four separate incidents:
(a)Incident 1 occurred on 13 September 2013 and involved one offence of sexual intercourse with the young person under the age of 16 and three offences of committing an act of indecency with the young person under the age of 16;
(b)Incident 2 occurred between April and June 2014 and involved two offences of committing an act of indecency with the young person under the age of 16;
(c)Incident 3 occurred in December 2014 and involved two offences of committing an act of indecency with the young person under the age of 16; and
(d)Incident 4 involved an offence…
Continue reading R v TL
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v TL [2017] ACTCA 18
- Case
- [2017] ACTCA 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was so lenient as to warrant appellate intervention. This required the Court to consider the sentencing remarks of the trial judge in their entirety and determine if they demonstrated an error in principle or an unreasonable exercise of discretion.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the sentencing remarks and concluded that while the sentence might have been at the lower end of the available range, it was not so lenient as to be considered manifestly inadequate. The judges considered the totality of the sentencing remarks and found no error in principle that would justify overturning the original sentence.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court judge was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.