NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Scales v R [2017] NSWCCA 293 Hearing dates: 15 May 2017 Date of orders: 01 December 2017 Decision date: 01 December 2017 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Price J at [2] Lonergan J at [3] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal allowed and the appeal against sentence upheld.
(2) Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 1 July 2016 in respect of Count 2 on the indictment and in lieu, sentence the Applicant to imprisonment comprising a period of 5 years to commence on 26 November 2016 and expire on 25 November 2021 with a non-parole period of 3 years to commence on 26 November 2016 and expire on 25 November 2019.
(3) The Applicant will become eligible for release on parole upon the expiration of his non-parole period. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – child sexual offences – aggravated indecent assault – two counts – objective seriousness – guilty plea – whether sentence reflects objective seriousness and discount for guilty plea – internal inconsistency in sentencing reasons – sentence manifestly excessive Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 61M(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; 229 A Crim R 337; [2013] HCA 37 Dinsdale v R (2000) 202 CLR 321; 115 A Crim R 558; [2000] HCA 54 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; 204 A Crim R 434; [2010] HCA 45 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Huynh v R (2008) 188 A Crim R 287; [2008] NSWCCA 216 Johnson v The Queen (2004) 205 ALR 346; [2004] HCA 15 Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; (2014) 238 A Crim R 134; [2014] HCA 37 Krivosic v R [2017] NSWCCA 167 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Mills v R [2017] NSWCCA 87 R v George (2004) 149 A Crim R 38; [2004] NSWCCA 247 R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; 33 A Crim R 230; [1988] HCA 14 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Lindsay Scales – Applicant Regina – Respondent Crown Representation: Counsel: Mr D Barrow – Applicant Mr N Adams – Respondent 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