Legal Research
Cases
Baldwin-Davies v The King

Baldwin-Davies v The King

Case [2024] NSWCCA 220 2 December 2024

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Baldwin-Davies v R [2024] NSWCCA 220
Hearing dates: 2 October 2024
Date of orders: 2 December 2024
Decision date: 02 December 2024
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1];
Basten AJA at [2];
Wright J at [50]
Decision:
(1)   Grant the applicant leave to appeal against the aggregate sentence imposed in the District Court on 20 November 2023.
(2)   Allow the appeal and set aside the aggregate sentence.
(3)   Resentence the applicant to an aggregate sentence comprising –
(a)   a non-parole period of 6 years and 4 months to date from 4 January 2022 and expire on 3 May 2028; and
(b)   a balance of term of 3 years and 2 months to expire on 3 July 2031.
(4)   The applicant will be eligible for release on parole from 3 May 2028.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal against sentence – aggregate sentence – sexual offending with minor – producing child abuse material – findings as to objective seriousness – whether sufficiently identified – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66C, 66DB, 91G
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 25AA, 53A

Cases Cited:
Baydoun v The King [2024] NSWCCA 65
Daher v R [2018] NSWCCA 287
Delaney v R [2013] NSWCCA 150; (2013) 230 A Crim R 581
DL v R [2020] NSWCCA 164
Dorsett v R [2024] NSWCCA 192
Du Plessis v R [2024] NSWCCA 164
Hili v R (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; 246 A Crim R 528
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
R v SS (a pseudonym) [2022] NSWCCA 258
Rainbow v R [2018] NSWCCA 42
Shalida v R [2024] NSWCCA 55
Sharma v R [2022] NSWCCA 190
Turner v R [2021] NSWCCA 5

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Luke Baldwin-Davies (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Climo (Applicant)
J Styles (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Cherie Pittman, Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Craig Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/00002800
Publication restriction: Under s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) and s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) publication of the name or any information tending to identify the victim is prohibited.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

20 November 2023

Before:

King SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2022/00002800

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 23 March 2023, Luke Baldwin-Davies (the applicant), entered pleas of guilty in the Local Court to five charges of aggravated sexual intercourse with a child, two charges of sexually touching a child and three charges of production of child abuse material. The charges all related to the applicant’s conduct over the course of one night in January 2022. The matters were transferred to the District Court for sentencing. On 20 November 2023 King…

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 Baldwin-Davies v The King

Details

AGLC: Baldwin-Davies v The King [2024] NSWCCA 220
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 220
Decision Date: 02 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Baldwin-Davies v The King involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the defendant following his convictions for producing child abuse material and sexual offences involving a minor. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The defendant, Baldwin-Davies, had pleaded guilty to multiple counts of producing child abuse material and engaging in sexual acts with a child. The trial judge sentenced Baldwin-Davies to an aggregate term of imprisonment, which he subsequently appealed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had not sufficiently identified the objective seriousness of the crimes.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the trial judge had adequately identified the objective seriousness of Baldwin-Davies' crimes and whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appeal hinged on the principles of sentencing and the requirement for courts to ensure that sentences are proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences committed. The court needed to determine whether the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and whether there were any errors in the trial judge's assessment of the objective seriousness.

The High Court, in its judgment, held that the trial judge had indeed failed to adequately identify the objective seriousness of the crimes, particularly in relation to the production of child abuse material. The court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently articulated the severity of the offences and their impact on the victim. Furthermore, the court concluded that the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the deficiencies in the trial judge's assessment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.

The final orders of the court required the trial judge to re-evaluate the sentence in light of the High Court's findings, ensuring that the objective seriousness of the crimes was appropriately identified and that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offences committed. The court did not specify a particular sentence but emphasised the need for a thorough reconsideration of the defendant's aggregate term of imprisonment.

Orders