AC v R [2023] NSWCCA 133

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: AC v R [2023] NSWCCA 133 Hearing dates: 19 May 2023 Date of orders: 09 June 2023 Decision date: 09 June 2023 Before: Bell CJ at [1]; Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [109]; Adamson JA at [144]; Ierace J at [145]; Chen J at [147] Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal. (2) Allow the appeal. (3) Quash the sentence imposed by Colefax SC DCJ on 27 November 2020. (4) Resentence the Applicant to an aggregate sentence of 7 years of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months, to date from 4 October 2019. Catchwords: SENTENCING – non-parole period – standard non-parole period – correct standard non-parole period to be applied to offences against s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) committed before 1 January 2008 – proper construction of s 25AA(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ("CSPA") – where standard non-parole period for offences against s 61M(2) had previously been raised from 5 years to 8 years with retrospective effect – whether the effect of amendments in 2018 was to limit the retrospective application of the higher standard non-parole period – whether GL v R [2022] NSWCCA 202 should be followed APPEALS – precedent – departure from previous decisions – circumstances in which Court of Criminal Appeal will depart from its own previous decisions – discussion of principles of restraint outlined in Gett v Tabet (2009) 109 NSWLR 1; [2009] NSWCA 76 – "plainly wrong" and "compelling reasons to depart" – whether conclusion about statutory construction in GL v R [2022] NSWCCA 202 falls within the ambit of the principles in Gett – whether principles in Gett are strictly confined to departure from the ratio decidendi of previous decisions – whether finding of error in sentencing discretion forms part of ratio decidendi in circumstances where appeal is ultimately dismissed because no less severe sentence is warranted in law STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – amendment and repeal – correct standard non-parole period to be applied to offences against s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) committed before 1 January 2008 – proper construction of s 25AA(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ("CSPA") – whether inconsistency existed between provisions of the CSPA introduced at different times – where standard non-parole period for offences against s 61M(2) had previously been raised from 5 years to 8 years with retrospective effect – whether the effect of amendments in 2018 was to limit the retrospective application of the higher standard non-parole period – transitional provisions said to limit the scope of operation of a substantive provision – whether GL v R [2022] NSWCCA 202 should be followed Legislation Cited: Crimes (Amendment) Act 1989 (NSW) Sch 1, cl 2 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A(3)(i), 25AA, 33, 44, 53A(2)(b), 54A(2), 54B(5), Pt 4 Div 1A, Sch 2 cll 57, 60, 91 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2007 (NSW) Sch 1, cll 10, 16 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2022 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61KC–KF, 61E(1) (now repealed), 61M (now repealed), 91H, 66A Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2008 (NSW) Sch 1 cl 9, Sch 2.4 cl 5 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) ss 5(1)(c), 6(3) Criminal Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse) Act 2018 (NSW) Sch 1 cl 7, Sch 3 cl 6 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 33 Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) r 3.5(5) Cases Cited: AJB v The Queen (2007) 169 A Crim R 32; [2007] NSWCCA 51 Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41 Amos v Brisbane City Council (2018) 230 LGERA 51; [2018] QCA 11 Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485; [1993] HCA 15 Berryman v R [2017] NSWCCA 297 Bligh Consulting Pty Ltd v Ausgrid [2017] NSWCA 95 Bole v Horton (1673) Vaugh 360 Bondi Beach Astra Retirement Village Pty Ltd v Gora (2011) 82 NSWLR 665; [2011] NSWCA 396 Bridges v Bridges (1944) 45 SR (NSW) 164 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v F H Faulding & Co Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524; [2000] FCA 316 Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR; [1990] HCA 24 Butler v Attorney-General (Vic) (1961) 106 CLR 268; [1961] HCA 32 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Amcor Ltd (No 3) [2008] FCA 1668 Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed (2010) 278 ALR 232; [2010] NSWCA 335 Chubb Insurance Company of Australia Limited v Moore (2013) 302 ALR 101; [2013] NSWCA 212 CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384; [1997] HCA 2 Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297; [1981] HCA 26 Elsaj v R [2017] NSWCCA 124 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22 Gett v Tabet (2009) 109 NSWLR 1; [2009] NSWCA 76 GL v R [2022] NSWCCA 202 GSH v R; R v GSH [2009] NSWCCA 214 Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd (2022) 96 ALJR 540; [2022] HCA 21 In Re State of Norway's Application (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 723 Isherwood v Butler Pollnow Pty Ltd (1986) 6 NSWLR 363 ISPT Nominees Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] NSWSC 697 Jimmy v R (2010) 77 NSWLR 540; [2010] NSWCCA 60 Kendirjian v Lepore (2017) 259 CLR 275; [2017] HCA 13 Kendirjian v Lepore [2015] NSWCA 132 Kentwell v R (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Klewer v Attorney-General (NSW) [2010] NSWCA 219 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA (2019) 264 CLR 421; [2019] HCA 3 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Nystrom (2006) 228 CLR 566; [2006] HCA 50 MPB v R [2013] NSWCCA 213 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Nguyen v Nguyen (1990) 169 CLR 245; [1990] HCA 9 Park v R [2020] NSWCCA 90 Penn-Texas Corp v Murat Anstalt (No 2) [1964] 2 QB 647 PG v R (2017) 268 A Crim R 61; [2017] NSWCCA 179 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 R v Lane [2011] NSWSC 289 R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368; [2002] NSWCCA 129 Re French Caledonia Travel Service Pty Ltd (in liq) (2003) 59 NSWLR 361; [2003] NSWSC 1008 RJE v Secretary to the Department of Justice (2008) 21 VR 526; [2008] VSCA 265 Shergold v Tanner (2002) 209 CLR 126; [2002] HCA 19 Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd v Page (2021) 106 NSWLR 1; [2021] NSWCA 204 The Ombudsman v Laughton (2005) 64 NSWLR 114; [2005] NSWCA 339 Totaan v R (2022) 108 NSWLR 17; [2022] NSWCCA 75 Wu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 105 FCR 39; [2000] FCA 1817 Texts Cited: B Chen, "Seriously Considering 'Seriously Considered Dicta': Precedent after Farah Constructions" (2021) 95 ALJ 186 J Stone, Precedent and Law: Dynamics of Common Law Growth (1985, Butterworths) M Harding and I Malkin, "The High Court of Australia's Obiter Dicta and Decision-Making in Lower Courts" (2012) 34 MULR 239 P Herzfeld and T Prince, Interpretation (2nd ed, 2020, Lawbook Co) R Cross and JW Harris, Precedent and English Law (4th ed, 1991, Clarendon Press, Oxford) Category: Principal judgment Parties: AC (Applicant) The Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: