Ak v R

The Applicant, Ak, appealed against his sentence for child sexual offences against two female victims aged between nine and 11 years. The appeal was heard by the court against the background of his conviction under s.66C(2) and s.61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in the manner in which he took into account the Applicant's uncharged sexual misconduct. The court found that the judge did not err in this regard, as the judge correctly identified the need to consider the uncharged conduct in determining the appropriate sentence.

The Applicant also argued that the sentencing judge erred in his approach to the Applicant's remorse and risk of reoffending. However, the court found no such error, noting that the sentencing judge exercised his independent discretion in accordance with the principles established in Kentwell v The Queen. The court found that the offending was of a serious nature, and the Applicant had shown limited insight and remorse, which did not warrant a lesser sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court emphasised the gravity of the offences committed by the Applicant, which involved vulnerable victims. The court found that the trial judge appropriately considered the uncharged sexual misconduct in determining the appropriate sentence, and that there was no error in the sentencing judge's approach to the Applicant's remorse and risk of reoffending. The court upheld the original sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community from the risk of reoffending.