Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Stephens v R [2022] NSWCCA 224 Hearing dates: 9 July 2021 Date of orders: 14 October 2022 Decision date: 14 October 2022 Before: Simpson AJA, Davies J, Button J Decision: (1) The applicant is sentenced to an aggregate head sentence of imprisonment for 4 years 6 months commencing on 26 August 2019 and expiring on 25 February 2024, with a non-parole period of 2 years 9 months that expired on 25 May 2022.
Category: Consequential orders Parties: Peter Leonard Stephens (Appellant)
The CrownRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
O P Holdenson QC/J O’Connor (Appellant)
D Kell SC/M W R Adams (Crown)
Macedone Legal (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s): 2017/331553 Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), publication of the name of, or any matter which could identify the complainant, is prohibited. Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of NSW
- Jurisdiction:
- Criminal
- Date of Decision:
- 13 November 2019
- Before:
- Woodburne SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2017/331553
ORDERS
-
THE COURT:
For count 1, an indicative head sentence of imprisonment for 1 year is recorded.
For count 2, an indicative head sentence of imprisonment for 3 years is recorded.
For count 3, an indicative head sentence of imprisonment for 3 years is recorded.
Order:
The applicant is sentenced to an aggregate head sentence of imprisonment for 4 years 6 months commencing on 26 August 2019 and expiring on 25 February 2024, with a non-parole period of 2 years 9 months on 25 May 2022.
The first date upon which the applicant became eligible for consideration for release to parole was 25 May 2022.
**********
Amendments
27 October 2022 - Refer to judgment [2022] NSWCCA 227.
- AGLC
- Stephens v The The King [2022] NSWCCA 224
- Case
- [2022] NSWCCA 224
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentence did not reflect the gravity of the offences and failed to adequately deter the appellant and others from committing similar crimes. The appellant's legal team contended that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances and that the District Court had adequately considered the relevant factors.
The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the seriousness of the offences. The Court found that the District Court had failed to adequately consider the impact of the offences on the victim and the need for general deterrence. The Court noted that the offences involved the sexual assault of a child and were of a high degree of culpability. The Court also considered the appellant's criminal history, which included previous convictions for sexual offences against children. The Court of Criminal Appeal ordered that the appellant be sentenced to an aggregate head sentence of imprisonment for 4 years 6 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years 9 months.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.