Legal Research
Cases
Stanton v R

Stanton v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 250 20 October 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Stanton v R [2017] NSWCCA 250
Hearing dates: 3 May 2017
Date of orders: 20 October 2017
Decision date: 20 October 2017
Before: Johnson J at [1];
Adamson J at [159];
Campbell J at [160]
Decision:
Leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING - Appeal against sentence - specific offences - historic child sexual abuse - offences by a religious brother and teacher against three boys (aged between nine and 11 years) during 18-month period in 1980 and 1981 - 12 offences of indecent assault, buggery and attempted buggery, with seven further offences on a Form 1 - severity - whether principle of totality applied - whether any error in imposing indicative sentences - whether aggregate sentence manifestly excessive

SENTENCING - Appeal against sentence - specific offences - historic child sexual abuse - whether due regard was had to sentencing practices at the time of the offences
SENTENCING - Appeal against sentence - remorse, rehabilitation and good character - where limited evidence lead by the offender - whether post-sentence conduct was sufficiently considered by the sentencing judge - whether sentencing judge erred in failing to make findings of remorse, rehabilitation or good character in the light of limited evidence
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Azzopardi v R (2011) 219 A Crim R 369; [2011] VSCA 372
BJS v R (2013) 231 A Crim R 537; [2013] NSWCCA 123
Brown v R [2012] NSWCCA 199
JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 at 304, 308, 340
Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; 131 CLR 623
R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469; [2014] NSWCCA 56
R v Gommeson (2014) 243 A Crim R 534; [2014] NSWCCA 159
R v MAK (2006) 167 A Crim 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21
Sullivan v R [2008] NSWCCA 296
Wilson v R [2017] NSWCCA 41
ZA v R [2017] NSWCCA 132
Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460; [2012] NSWCCA 44
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Odgers SC (Applicant)
Mr SA Hughes (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/380256; 2013/380325; 2014/151590
Publication restriction: ---
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Parramatta District Court

Jurisdiction:

---

Citation:

---

Date of Decision:

12 February 2016

Before:

His Honour Judge Colefax SC

File Number(s):

2013/380256; 2013/380325; 2014/15159

Judgment

JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Michael Stanton, seeks leave to appeal against an aggregate sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Colefax SC at the Parramatta District Court on 12 February…

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 Stanton v R

Details

AGLC: Stanton v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 250
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 250
Decision Date: 20 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerns the sentencing of an offender, Stanton, who was convicted of a series of historical child sexual abuse offences committed against three boys over an 18-month period between 1980 and 1981. The offences involved twelve counts of indecent assault, buggery, and attempted buggery, along with an additional seven offences recorded on a Form 1. The case was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The court had to determine whether the principle of totality had been properly applied, ensuring that the cumulative impact of the offender's sentence was considered. It also needed to evaluate whether there was an error in the imposition of the indicative sentences and whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive. Another critical issue was whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered the sentencing practices at the time the offences were committed. Furthermore, the court examined whether the sentencing judge had erred by not making findings regarding the offender's remorse, rehabilitation, and good character due to the limited evidence presented.

In its reasoning, the Court of Criminal Appeal highlighted that the principle of totality is crucial in ensuring that the overall sentence does not excessively exceed the cumulative punishment that would be warranted for the individual offences. The court found that while the total sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive given the gravity and number of the offences committed. The court also concluded that there was no significant error in the imposition of the indicative sentences, and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the practices at the time of the offences. However, the court noted that the sentencing judge could have more thoroughly evaluated the evidence of the offender's remorse, rehabilitation, and good character, especially given the limited information available. Despite this, the court decided that these omissions did not warrant a reduction in the sentence.

The court ultimately upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, finding that it was just and appropriate given the nature and severity of the offences. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was confirmed.

Orders