NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Maxwell v R [2020] NSWCCA 94 Hearing dates: 20 April 2020 Date of orders: 08 May 2020 Decision date: 08 May 2020 Before: Johnson J at [1] Adamson J at [149] Bellew J at [150] Decision: 1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted. 2. Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: APPEAL – sentence – child sex offences – applicant sexually abused his daughter – 17 offences over nine-year period – aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years and six months – conceded error in specification of standard non-parole periods – Court to exercise sentencing discretion to determine whether lesser sentence warranted – objective gravity of offences – victim aged between five and 15 years during period of offending – lesser sentence not warranted – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Courts Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Judgments) Act 2014 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2007 Crimes Act 1900 Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Offences) Act 2015 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 District Court Act 1973 Supreme Court Act 1970 Surveillance Devices Act 2007 Cases Cited: Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25 BT v R [2010] NSWCCA 267 Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 Chin-Charles v R; Cullen v R [2020] 1 Cr App R (S) 6; [2019] EWCA Crim 1140 Corby v R [2010] NSWCCA 146 DAC v R [2006] NSWCCA 265 Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (A Pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428; [2017] HCA 41 He v R [2016] NSWCCA 220 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 You v R [2020] NSWCCA 71 JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297 Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 PG v R (2017) 268 A Crim R 61; [2017] NSWCCA 179 Potts v R [2017] NSWCCA 10 R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469; [2014] NSWCCA 56 R v Hamieh [2010] NSWCCA 189 R v MAK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381 R v Mirzaee [2004] NSWCCA 315 R v PGM (2008) 187 A Crim R 152; [2008] NSWCCA 172 R v Pham [2005] NSWCCA 94 R v Qin [2008] NSWCCA 189 R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 R v Van Ryn (No. 3) [2016] NSWCCA 307 RO v R [2019] NSWCCA 183 Vaughan v R [2020] NSWCCA 3 ZA v R (2017) 267 A Crim R 105; [2017] NSWCCA 132 Texts Cited: --- Category: Principal judgment Parties: George Maxwell (a pseudonym) (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms J Paingakulam (Applicant) Ms M Millward (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