Doyle v The Queen - [2021] NSWCCA 297

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Doyle v R [2021] NSWCCA 297
Hearing dates: 18 October 2021
Date of orders: 13 December 2021
Decision date: 13 December 2021
Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1]
R A Hulme J at [44]
Dhanji J at [52]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – indecent assaults committed on young male employees over a 30-year period – five victims – aggregate sentence – erroneous reference to standard non-parole period – error established – no lesser sentence warranted in law

Legislation Cited:
Crimes(Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002
Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25
Campbell v R [2018] NSWCCA 17
Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
LN v R [2020] NSWCCA 131
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Porter v R [2019] NSWCCA 117
R v Doyle [2021] NSWDC 21
Rizk v R [2020] NSWCCA 291
RO v R [2019] NSWCCA 183

Texts Cited:
Judicial Officers’ Bulletin, “Section 21A and the Sentencing Exercise” (2005) 17(6) JOB 43

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Phillip William Doyle (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
I Lloyd QC (Applicant)
K Jeffreys (Crown)
Solicitors:
D Accoto (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/302443
Publication restriction: Pursuant to section 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and 578A of the Crimes Act 1900, publication of any matter which could identify the victims is prohibited
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

R v Doyle [2021] NSWDC 21

Date of Decision:

11 February 2021

Before:

Judge Mahony SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/302443

Judgment

BEECH-JONES CJ at CL: This is an application for leave to appeal against an aggregate sentence imposed upon the applicant for six sexual offences committed against children between 1978 and 2010. A further eight offences of a similar nature were taken into account on forms filed by the prosecutor under s 32(1) of the Crimes(Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (“Form 1s”).
For the reasons set out below, although there were two conceded errors in the sentencing judgment, I consider that no lesser sentence is warranted and the appeal should be dismissed.

The Sentence

On 30 September 2020, just prior to the commencement of his trial, the applicant entered pleas of guilty to the offences noted above. On 11 February 2021, Judge Mahony SC sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 6 years 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 4 July 2018 (R v Doyle [2021] NSWDC 21). The applicant will first become eligible for parole on 3 July 2022.
The following table outlines the offences for which the applicant was sentenced including the Form 1 offences, the maximum penalty, any applicable…

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 Doyle v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Doyle v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 297
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 297
Decision Date: 13 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Doyle v The Queen, the appellant, Doyle, was convicted of multiple counts of indecent assault against young male employees over a span of thirty years, with five victims. The High Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the legality of the aggregate sentence imposed by the lower courts. The Crown appealed the decision, arguing that the aggregate sentence did not adequately reflect the severity of the crimes committed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the aggregate sentence imposed on Doyle was lawful, particularly in light of an erroneous reference to the standard non-parole period. The court had to determine whether this error was sufficiently significant to warrant a review of the sentence, and if the aggregate sentence was justified given the nature and extent of the offences. The court also considered whether the error in the sentencing process resulted in a sentence that was manifestly inadequate.

In its decision, the court acknowledged that there was an error in the reference to the standard non-parole period. However, it found that this error did not undermine the overall fairness of the sentence. The court determined that the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the severity and frequency of the assaults, as well as the number of victims. Given the circumstances, the court concluded that no lesser sentence was warranted under the law. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders