NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v CTG [2017] NSWCCA 163 Hearing dates: 23 June 2017 Date of orders: 05 July 2017 Decision date: 05 July 2017 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; R A Hulme J at [105]; Wilson J at [106] Decision: (1) Crown appeal allowed. (2) The sentence imposed by Williams SC DCJ on 24 February 2017 is quashed. (3) In lieu thereof the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years with a non-parole period of 8 years. The sentence is to date from 7 May 2015. The non-parole period will expire on 6 May 2023 whereupon the respondent will become eligible for release on parole. The total term will expire on 6 May 2027. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence – one offence of unauthorised possession of a pistol, five offences of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 years and one offence of make child abuse material – error in assessment of objective seriousness of sexual intercourse offences – error in assessment of matters to be properly taken into account in mitigation of offending – failure to properly apply the principle of totality – sentence manifestly inadequate – Crown appeal allowed – offender resentenced. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – ss 66A, 91G Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – s 3A Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5D Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) – s 7 Cases Cited: Bravo v R [2015] NSWCCA 302 CMB v Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21 Harris v R [2015] NSWCCA 81 Jonson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286 Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 118 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mills v R [2017] NSWCCA 87 Mulato v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 282 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 R v BA [2014] NSWCCA 148 R v Barker [2016] NSWCCA 193 R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349 R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56 R v JP [2015] NSWCCA 267 R v ND [2016] NSWCCA 103 Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; 223 A Crim R 460 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina – Applicant CTG - Respondent Representation: Counsel: M Cinque SC – Applicant W Wilcher – 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