NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v JP [2015] NSWCCA 267 Hearing dates: 24 September 2015 Decision date: 09 October 2015 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Price J at [75] Button J at [86] Decision: Crown appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence – one count of sexual intercourse with child under 10 under authority contrary to s 66A(2) Crimes Act 1900 – two further offences of production and dissemination of child abuse material under s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 on a Form 1 – victim aged 6 weeks – offender mother of victim – offender suffering from intellectual disability – offender isolated and vulnerable at time of offending – whether open to sentencing judge to characterise the objective seriousness of the offending as "at the very bottom of the range of crimes of this nature" – assessment of objective seriousness of offending by sentencing judge in error – offending objectively very serious – subjective case important but error in sentencing judge not imposing a custodial sentence – suspended sentence manifestly inadequate – residual discretion should be applied – Crown appeal dismissed. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 – s 66A(2), s 91H(2), Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 – s 3A(f), s 32 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 – s 5D, 5E(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 – ss 165 - 167 Cases Cited: Abbas Bodiotis Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115; 231 A Crim R 413 Attorney General's Application under Section 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002) [2002] NSWCCA 518; 56 NSWLR 146 CMB v Attorney General for NSW [2015] HCA 9; 89 ALJR 407 Green v R; Quinn v R [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Hoskins v R [2015] NSWCCA 245 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282 Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21 R v Dinsdale [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 R v Muldrock; Muldrock v R [2012] NSWCCA 108 Williams v R [2012] NSWCCA 172 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina – Applicant JP - Respondent Representation: Counsel: Ms T Smith – Applicant Crown Ms B Rigg SC - 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