ZA v R [2017] NSWCCA 132

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: ZA v R [2017] NSWCCA 132 Hearing dates: 8 February 2017 Date of orders: 16 June 2017 Decision date: 16 June 2017 Before: Payne JA at [1] Johnson and Fullerton JJ at [13] Decision: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – child sexual assault offences – child abuse material offences – seven counts under s.66A(2) Crimes Act 1900 – victim of s.66A(2) offences was Applicant's 8-9 year old daughter – two counts under s.91G(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 involving Applicant filming sexual offences committed against his daughter – one count of possession of child abuse material contrary to s.91H(2) Crimes Act 1900 – aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 26 years and non-parole period of 18 years – claim of failure to give adequate reasons for aggregate sentence – error not demonstrated - claim of error in application of totality principle – whether totality principle involved two limbs addressing objective and subjective considerations – totality principle considered - two-limb approach rejected - no error in application of totality principle - claim that sentence manifestly excessive – aggregate sentence open to sentencing Judge - manifest excess not established - appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: AC v R [2016] NSWCCA 21 Asplund v R (Cth) [2014] NSWCCA 237 Azzopardi v R (2011) 35 VR 43; [2011] VSCA 372 Beale v R [2015] NSWCCA 120 Bowman v The Queen (1993) 69 A Crim R 530 BR v R [2015] NSWCCA 255 Bravo v R [2015] NSWCCA 302 Franklin v R [2016] NSWCCA 319 FWB v State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 118 GJ v R [2014] NSWCCA 292 Hall v R [2017] ACTCA 16 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 JL v R [2014] NSWCCA 130 JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297 Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616; [2004] HCA 15 Jolly v R (2013) 229 A Crim R 198; [2013] NSWCCA 76 JT v R [2012] NSWCCA 133 Labrook v State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 127 Leslie v R (2013) 227 A Crim R 116; [2013] NSWCCA 48 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70 MLP v R [2014] NSWCCA 183 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Nguyen v The Queen (2016) 256 CLR 656; [2016] HCA 17 Paxton v R (2011) 219 A Crim R 104; [2011] NSWCCA 242 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 R v E (2005) 93 SASR 20; [2005] SASC 332 R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469; [2014] NSWCCA 56 R v Holder; R v Johnston (1983) 3 NSWLR 245 R v MAK; R v MSK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381 R v Zaydan [2004] VSCA 245 Roffey v State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246 Texts Cited: DA Thomas, Principles of Sentencing: The Sentencing Policy of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (2nd ed 1979, London: Heinemann Educational) Category: Principal judgment Parties: ZA (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr S Odgers SC (Applicant) Mr SA Hughes (Respondent)