Bell v R [2019] NSWCCA 251

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Bell v R [2019] NSWCCA 251 Hearing dates: 14 October 2019 Decision date: 23 October 2019 Before: Bell P at [1]; Simpson AJA at [2]; R A Hulme J at [3] Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Uphold the appeal against sentence. 3. Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 10 August 2018 and in lieu, impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 7 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 5 years 7 months dating from 18 April 2017. The offender will become eligible for release on parole upon the expiry of the non-parole period on 17 November 2022. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against sentence – sexual offences committed against child aged between 10 and 14 years – victim had cognitive impairment – whether errors in assessment of the objective seriousness of offences – asserted errors of failing to take into account the victim's consent, failing to find that cognitive impairment is a less serious type of aggravating circumstance, and finding that second offence was aggravated by planning – asserted errors rejected – sentencing findings reasonably open to be made – whether sentence is manifestly excessive – issue is whether sentence is proportionate to totality of criminality – substantial degree of accumulation of indicative sentences – subjective matters should not lose force in assessment of aggregate sentence – stern sentence required to respond to s 3A purposes of sentencing – inadequate allowance for favourable aspects of subjective case – sentence manifestly excessive Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61H(1A), 61HD(1A), 61J, 66C(2), 66C(5), 66C(5)(f), Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(2), 21A(2)(n), 53A, 54B(4) Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 517; [2013] HCA 37 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 Dawkins v R [2018] NSWCCA 278 Hogan v R [2008] NSWCCA 150; (2008) 186 A Crim R 52 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; (2014) 246 A Crim R 528 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Nguyen v R (2016) 256 CLR 656; [2016] HCA 17 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57 R v Brady (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 3 March 1994, unrep) R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172 R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159 R v McClymont (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 17 December 1992, unrep) R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242 R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130 R v West [2014] NSWCCA 250 R v Woods [2009] NSWCCA 55; (2009) 195 A Crim R 173 Ramos v R [2015] NSWCCA 313 The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31 Wakeling v R [2016] NSWCCA 33 Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; (2012) 223 A Crim R 460 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ty Andrew Bell (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms S Goodwin (Applicant) Mr D Patch (Respondent)