NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Burr v R [2020] NSWCCA 282 Hearing dates: 21 August 2020 Decision date: 02 November 2020 Before: Leeming JA at [1] Johnson J at [2] Rothman J at [183] Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Appeal against sentence dismissed. Catchwords: APPEAL – application for leave to appeal against sentence – plea of guilty to one count of persistent sexual abuse of a child contrary to s.66EA Crimes Act 1900 – s.66EA offence comprising 12 separate ingredient offences under s.66C(3) Crimes Act 1900 committed in 2006 and 2007 – sentence of imprisonment for 10 years and 9 months with non-parole period of 7 years – general observations concerning sentencing for s.66EA offences – consideration of factors relevant to sentencing for s.66EA offences – whether sentencing Judge erred in taking into account that the Applicant was in a position of authority over the victim – error not established – whether the sentencing Judge erred in failing to assess the objective seriousness of the s.66EA offence or alternatively failed to consider the nature of the ingredient offences when considering the objective seriousness of the s.66EA offence – error not established – whether sentence manifestly excessive – limited utility of sentencing statistics for s.66EA offences – applicant's s.66EA offence of considerable objective gravity – harm to victim from offence – held sentence not manifestly excessive – leave to appeal against sentence granted – appeal against sentence dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Offences) Act 1998 Criminal Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse) Act 2018 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Cases Cited: AC v R [2016] NSWCCA 107 AK v R [2016] NSWCCA 238 ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266 Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2 Bland v R (2014) 241 A Crim R 51; [2014] NSWCCA 82 Chiro v The Queen (2017) 260 CLR 425; [2017] HCA 37 DL v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 1; [2018] HCA 26 DS v R (2012) 221 A Crim R 235; [2012] NSWCCA 159 Elias v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31 Gal v R [2015] NSWCCA 242 Goodbun v R [2020] NSWCCA 77 Hamra v The Queen (2017) 260 CLR 479; [2017] HCA 38 Higgins v R [2020] NSWCCA 169 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Hitchen v R [2010] NSWCCA 77 Hogan v R (2008) 186 A Crim R 52; [2008] NSWCCA 150 Hordern v R [2019] NSWCCA 210 IS v R [2011] NSWCCA 142 KBT v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 417; [1997] HCA 54 KMC v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) (2020) 94 ALJR 415; [2020] HCA 6 KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; [2001] HCA 11 LA v R [2013] NSWCCA 146 Langbein v R (2008) 181 A Crim R 378; [2008] NSWCCA 38 Mills v R [2017] NSWCCA 87 Mokhaiber v R [2011] NSWCCA 10 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 Paxton v R (2011) 219 A Crim R 104; [2011] NSWCCA 242 PB v R [2016] NSWCCA 258 R v Boulad [2005] NSWCCA 289 R v Cage [2006] NSWCCA 304 R v D (1997) 69 SASR 413 R v DM [2018] NSWDC 62 R v Fitzgerald (2004) 59 NSWLR 493; [2004] NSWCCA 5 R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469; [2014] NSWCCA 56 R v Hamieh [2010] NSWCCA 189 R v JCW (2000) 112 A Crim R 466; [2000] NSWCCA 209 R v Manners [2004] NSWCCA 181 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242 R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130 R v Speechley (2012) 221 A Crim R 175; [2012] NSWCCA 130 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 R v Woods (2009) 195 A Crim 173; [2009] NSWCCA 55 R v Wright [2017] NSWCCA 102 Rainbow v R [2018] NSWCCA 42 S v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 266; [1989] HCA 66 Skocic v R [2014] NSWCCA 225 Tepania v R (2018) 275 A Crim R 233; [2018] NSWCCA 247 The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31 Vasilevski v R [2019] NSWCCA 277 Wakeling v R [2016] NSWCCA 33 Wright v R [2019] NSWCCA 134 Texts Cited: --- Category: Principal judgment Parties: Anthony Joseph Burr (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr N Funnell (Applicant) Mr GA Newton (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate