NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 Hearing dates: 21 October 2014 Decision date: 05 December 2014 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; R A Hulme J at [2]; Adamson J at [107] Decision: 1. Leave to appeal granted. 2. Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - child sexual assault offences - child abuse material offences -- criticisms of conduct of lawyers acting for applicant on sentence not made out - unjustified reduction of discount for some pleas of guilty but no material effect on aggregate sentence - no error in discounts not being precisely quantified -claim to be in protective custody not made out - aggregate sentence not manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - aggregate sentence - unnecessarily detailed approach of specifying non-parole periods and commencement dates for indicative sentences - principles and statutory provisions concerning aggregate sentencing - contentions about assessment of indicative sentences misplaced Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2010 Cases Cited: AB v R [2014] NSWCCA 31 Ayache v R [2013] NSWCCA 41 Behman v R [2014] NSWCCA 239 BJS v R [2013] NSWCCA 123 CL v R [2014] NSWCCA 196 Clinton v R [2009] NSWCCA 276 Cullen v R [2014] NSWCCA 162 FP v R [2012] NSWCCA 182; 224 A Crim R 82 Grealish v R [2013] NSWCCA 336 JL v R [2014] NSWCCA 130 Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37 Khawaja v R [2014] NSWCCA 80 Martin v R [2014] NSWCCA 124 Milat v R; Klein v R [2014] NSWCCA 29 PD v R [2012] NSWCCA 242 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 R v ABS [2005] NSWCCA 255 R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60; 112 A Crim R 1 R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; 195 A Crim R 1 R v Brown [2012] NSWCCA 199 R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148 R v Clarke [2013] NSWCCA 260 R v Evans (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 24 March 1988, unrep) R v Lolesio [2014] NSWCCA 219 R v MJB [2014] NSWCCA 195 R v Nykolyn [2012] NSWCCA 219 R v Rae [2013] NSWCCA 9 R v SY [2003] NSWCCA 291 R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383 Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; 206 CLR 267 SHR v R [2014] NSWCCA 94 Stoeski v R [2014] NSWCCA 161 Subramaniam v R [2013] NSWCCA 159 Truong v R; R v Le; Nguyen v R; R v Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 36 Category: Principal judgment Parties: JM (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Applicant in person Mr P Ingram SC (Crown)
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