An aggregate sentence of 6 years imprisonment for two counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 (s 66A(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)), where the maximum penalties were 25 years and life imprisonment respectively, was manifestly inadequate notwithstanding that the sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness as below mid-range was accepted. The case illustrates that the significance of the maximum penalty and standard non-parole period as legislative guideposts may render a sentence manifestly inadequate even where no specific error in the sentencing judge's reasoning is identified.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.