Legal Research
Cases
Shannon v R

Shannon v R

Case [2006] NSWCCA 39 2 March 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Shannon v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 39

HEARING DATE(S): 24/02/2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Barr J at 2; Howie J at 3

DECISION: Leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - child sexual offences - whether sentence manifestly excessive - vulnerability of the victim - relevance of delay in prosecution.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 -s 66C(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 21A

CASES CITED: R v Hathaway [2005] NSWCCA 368
R v Barker and Gibson [2006] NSWCCA 20

PARTIES: Robert James Shannon v Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/2165

COUNSEL: Dr P. Power SC - Crown
C. Craigie SC - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
Sydney Regional Aboriginal Corp Legal Service - Applicant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/21/3095

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Marien DCJ

2005/2165

MASON P
BARR J
HOWIE J
THURSDAY 2 MARCH 2006

Robert James SHANNON v REGINA

Judgment

1 MASON P: I agree with Howie J.

2 BARR J: I agree with Howie J.

3 HOWIE J: On 1 November 2004 the applicant was arraigned before a jury on an indictment containing nine counts of sexual assault offences against a child. On the third day of the trial the applicant asked to be re-arraigned on a fresh indictment alleging three counts of sexual intercourse upon the complainant. He pleaded guilty to each of those offences and was ultimately sentenced by Judge Marien SC (the Judge) to sentences totalling imprisonment for five years with an overall minimum period of imprisonment of three years. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of those sentences.

4 The three offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty were identical in form and were each worded as follows:

Crimes Act

5 In respect of the first count the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 18 months to commence on 20 April 2005 and to expire on 19 October 2006. In respect of the second count the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of two years commencing on 20 April 2006 and expiring on 19 April 2008. In respect of the third count the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years commencing on 20 June 2007 with a non-parole period of…

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 Shannon v R

Details

AGLC: Shannon v R [2006] NSWCCA 39
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 39
Decision Date: 2 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Shannon, was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault against a child and was sentenced to imprisonment. Shannon appealed against the severity of the sentence, contending it was manifestly excessive, while the Crown argued for affirmation of the sentence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was appropriate, taking into account the nature of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, and the delay in bringing the case to prosecution.

The court examined the principles guiding the sentencing of child sexual offences, emphasising the importance of ensuring sentences reflect the gravity of such crimes while also considering the specific circumstances of each case. It was necessary to assess whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the vulnerability of the victim and the delay in prosecution, which might impact the severity of the penalty. The court also had to weigh the arguments presented by both parties concerning the appropriate length of the sentence.

After thorough consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal principles, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The delay in prosecution, while relevant, did not warrant a reduction in the sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate, given the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community and deter similar conduct. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court. The decision confirmed that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant principles in determining the sentence for the appellant's convictions.

Orders