NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v JF [2017] NSWCCA 217 Hearing dates: 28 April 2017 Decision date: 06 September 2017 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Fullerton J at [2] Hamill J at [154] Decision: 1. Crown appeal allowed.
2. Confirm the sentence imposed for the offence under s 474 of the Criminal Code Act (Cth) (being charge sequence 4).
3. Quash the aggregate sentence imposed by Toner DCJ on 30 November 2016 for the offences under the Crimes Act (NSW) (being charge sequences 1 (+ Form 1), 2, 31, 32, 5, 8, 33, 34, 11, 13, 14, 17, 22, 24, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 3).
4. In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 years with a non-parole period of 7 years commencing on 6 February 2016 and expiring on 5 February 2023 with a balance of term of 5 years expiring on 5 February 2028. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence –thirteen offences laid under ss 66EB(2), 66C(3), 66C(1), 61N(1), 91D(1)(a) Crimes Act (NSW), s 474.27A(1) Criminal Code Act (Cth) – thirteen complainants aged 14 to 16 – manifest inadequacy of sentence – failure to assess objective seriousness – prospects of rehabilitation erroneously assessed – failure to apply totality principle Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9 Dinsdale v R (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248 Gifford v R [2016] NSWCCA 302 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76 Kentwell v R (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 R v AJP [2004] NSWCCA 434; (2004) 150 A Crim R 575 R v Asplund; Asplund v R [2010] NSWCCA 316 R v Cortese [2013] NSWCCA 148 R v Crumpton [2016] NSWCCA 261 R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192 R v Harris [2015] NSWCCA 81 R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 R v King [2009] NSWCCA 117 R v MAK; R v MSK; [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159 R v Nahlous [2013] NSWCCA 90 R v Pogson; R v Lapham; R v Martin (2012) 82 NSWLR 60; [2012] NSWCCA 225 R (Cth) v Poynder [2007] NSWCCA 157 Tector v R [2008] NSWCCA 151 ZA v R [2017] NSWCCA 132 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Crown (Applicant) JF (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Dowling SC (Crown) T Gartelmann 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