Legal Research
Cases
Allen (a pseudonym) v The King

Allen (a pseudonym) v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 210 3 September 2025

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0058

CAMERON ALLEN (A PSEUDONYM)	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	TAYLOR JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 September 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 210
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Allen (a pseudonym) (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Harper, 28 February 2025)

---

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURUSANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Applicant convicted of child sex offences and child abuse material offence – Sexual penetration of child under 12 not established on complainant’s evidence – Applicant admitted to sexual penetration in police interview – Whether sentence is manifestly excessive– Whether disclosure of offending given sufficient weight – Appropriate weight given to Doran discount – Principle of totality correctly applied – Order of cumulation well within range – Leave to appeal refused.

R v CLP [2008] VSCA 113; Doran v The Queen [2005] VSCA 271; DPC v The Queen [2011] VSCA 395; JBM v The Queen [2013] VSCA 69, discussed.

Goh v The Queen [2022] VSCA 24; Mush v The Queen [2019] VSCA 307; Ryan v The Queen (2001) CLR 267, referred to.

---

Counsel on the papers
Applicant:		Ms E Allan
Respondent:		Ms B Kelly
Solicitors
Applicant:	Victoria Legal Aid
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TAYLOR JA:

On 12 February 2025 the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge each of sexual penetration of a child under 12, sexual assault of a child under 16 and possession of child abuse material. On 28 February 2025 he was sentenced as follows[1]:
[1]DPP v Allen (a pseudonym) (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Harper, 28 February 2025) (‘Reasons’).

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 12[2]	25 years	5 years	Base
2	Sexual assault of a child under the age of 16[3]	10 years	2 years 9 months	1 year and 9 months
3	Possession of child abuse material[4]	10 years	3 years	2 years
Total Effective Sentence:		8 years 9 months
Non-Parole Period:		5 years 5 months
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		422 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		Total Effective Sentence 12 years Non Parole-Period 7 years 9 months
Other Relevant Orders: 1. Sentenced as a serious sexual offender in respect of charge 3.[5] 2. Length of reporting period is life[6]

[2]Contrary to s 49A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.

[3]Contrary to s 49D(1) of the Crimes Act.

[4]Contrary to s 51G(1) of the Crimes Act.

[5]Pursuant to s 6F of the Sentencing Act 1991.

[6]Pursuant to s 34 of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence on two grounds formulated as follows:
1.The sentence imposed on charge 1 is manifestly excessive because it fails to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Allen (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Allen (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] VSCA 210
Case: [2025] VSCA 210
Decision Date: 3 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, referred to as Allen, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by a single judge, under section 315 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. Allen was convicted of child sex offences and an offence involving child abuse material. The appeal concerns the severity of the sentence imposed by the court, with Allen asserting that it is manifestly excessive. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the disclosure of the offending was given sufficient weight, and if the appropriate weight was given to the Doran discount. The court also needed to determine if the principle of totality was correctly applied and if the order of cumulation was within the acceptable range. The arguments centred around the severity of the sentence in light of the applicant’s admissions and the weight afforded to various sentencing considerations.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It considered the admissions made by Allen in his police interview, the appropriate weight given to the Doran discount, and the principle of totality. The court also examined the order of cumulation and concluded that it was well within the acceptable range. The applicant's arguments did not persuade the court that the sentence was excessive or that there had been any errors in the application of the sentencing principles. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

In light of the above, the Supreme Court of Victoria refused Allen leave to appeal against the sentence determined by the single judge.

Orders