Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 220

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 220 Hearing dates: 11 August 2021 Decision date: 10 September 2021 Before: Leeming JA at [1]; R A Hulme J at [2]; Campbell J at [137] Decision: 1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted. 2. Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against sentence – multiple sexual offences committed while victim detained for a lengthy period – Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 86(2)(b), 61J(1), 61I – domestic violence – guilty plea – totality – critical feature is need for overall sentence to reflect totality of criminality – crushing sentence – severity of sentence not linear – no error in application of totality principle – express reference to specific errors which have been avoided by sentencing judge not required – ground rejected CRIME – appeal against sentence – manifest excess – aggregate sentence – partial accumulation – partial concurrency – offences above mid-range of objective seriousness – seven Form 1 offences – indicative non-parole periods less than standard non-parole periods – modest individual indicative sentences – greater need for accumulation – limited utility of comparable cases – comparable cases referred to easily distinguished – ground rejected – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61I, 61J(1), 86(2)(b), 195(1)(a) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Act 2009 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A(5AA), 44(2B) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166 Cases Cited: Aryal v R [2021] NSWCCA 2 Asplund v R (Cth) [2014] NSWCCA 237 Attorney-General v Tichy 1982) 30 SASR 84 Attwater v R; Maris v R [2021] NSWCCA 17 Azzopardi v R (2011) 35 VR 43; [2011] VSCA 372 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 Chaouk v R [2017] NSWCCA 295 Clinch v R (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 205 A Crim R 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 FL v R [2020] NSWCCA 114 Franklin v R [2013] NSWCCA 122 GJ v R [2014] NSWCCA 292 Hurst v R [2017] NSWCCA 114 JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297 Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616; [2004] HCA 15 JT v R [2012] NSWCCA 133 Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218 Kleindienst v R [2020] NSWCCA 98 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1998] HCA 70 Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38 Newell v R [2004] NSWCCA 183 Nguyen v The Queen (2016) 256 CLR 656; [2016] HCA 17 Noonan v R [2021] NSWCCA 35 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 Osman v R [2020] NSWCCA 78 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 R v Attwater; R v Maris [2017] NSWSC 1710 R v Edigarov (2001) 125 A Crim R 551; [2001] NSWCCA 436 R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245; (1983) 13 A Crim R 375 R v Jarrold [2010] NSWCCA 69 R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R 252; [2005] NSWCCA 253 R v MAK; R v MSK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381 R v Reyes [2005] NSWCCA 218 R v Rossi (1988) 142 LSJS 451 R v Vaitos (1981) 4 A Crim R 238 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168; [2004] NSWCCA 131 Sabbah v R (Cth) (2020) 283 A Crim R 78; [2020] NSWCCA 89 Simon v R [2013] NSWCCA 328 Stanton v R [2017] NSWCCA 250 Stephens v R [2010] NSWCCA 93 Vaughan v R [2020] NSWCCA 3 ZA v R (2017) 267 A Crim R 105; [2017] NSWCCA 132 Texts Cited: D A Thomas, Principles of Sentencing (2nd ed, 1979, Heinemann) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Adam Hall (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr R Rajalingam with Mr D Mulligan (Applicant) Ms C Dodds (Crown)