Adam Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Adam Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76 Hearing dates: 11 March 2013 Decision date: 16 April 2013 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Slattery J at [2] Bellew J at [3] Decision: (i)leave to appeal granted; (ii)appeal allowed; (iii)the sentence imposed in respect of count 1, being the offence against s. 66B of the Crimes Act is quashed; (iv)in lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to a non-parole period of 10 years and 6 months imprisonment commencing on 25 February 2011 and ending on 24 August 2021, with a balance of term of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment commencing on 25 August 2021 and ending on 24 February 2026; (v)the sentence imposed in respect of count 3, being the offence against s. 66A(2) of the Crimes Act is quashed; (vi)in lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to a non-parole period of 12 years and 7 months imprisonment commencing on 25 May 2011 and expiring on 24 December 2023, with a balance of term of 5 years and 5 months imprisonment commencing on 25 December 2023 and expiring on 24 May 2029; (vii)the total overall sentence imposed upon the applicant is a non-parole period of 13 years and 4 months, commencing on 25 August 2010 and expiring on 24 December 2023, and a balance of term of 5 years and 5 months, commencing on 25 December 2023 and expiring on 24 May 2029; (viii)the earliest date upon which the applicant may be released to parole is 25 December 2023. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - appeal against sentences imposed for kidnapping, aggravated indecent assault, attempted sexual intercourse with a child under 10 and aggravated sexual intercourse with a child under 10 - whether sentencing judge erred in finding that the objective seriousness of the offences were aggravated by the fact that they were part of a series of acts aimed at self-sexual gratification - whether the sentencing judge erred in determining the objective seriousness of the offending - whether the sentencing judge, having found that the offending was above the mid range of objective seriousness, erred in failing to specify the extent to which the offending fell above that range