Legal Research
Cases
DPP v CJA

DPP v CJA

Case [2013] VSCA 18 15 February 2013

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0120

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
	v
CJA	Respondent

---

JUDGES	WARREN CJ, NEAVE and REDLICH JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	4 February 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	15 February 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 18
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v [CJA] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, 30 April 2012, Judge Allen)

---

CRIMINAL LAW − Director’s appeal against sentence − Eight representative charges of incest with natural daughter − Victim intellectually disabled − Resulting pregnancy − Child born with medical difficulties − Total effective sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment, and non-parole period of five years imposed − Whether sentence manifestly inadequate − Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr J R Champion SC with Ms F Dalziel	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr M G O’Connell SC with Mr S A Moglia	Victoria Legal Aid

WARREN CJ:
NEAVE JA:
REDLICH JA:

The respondent, CJA, pleaded guilty in the County Court of Victoria to eight representative charges of incest with his biological daughter. At the time of offending, the respondent was 45 years old and the victim, who has an intellectual disability, was aged 19.

On 30 April 2012, the respondent was sentenced to a total effective sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years. The individual sentences and orders for cumulation are set out in paragraph 18 below. In relation to charges 3 to 8, the respondent was sentenced as a serious sexual offender under Part 2A of the Sentencing Act 1991.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (‘Director’) now appeals against the total effective sentence and non-parole period imposed, on the basis that they are manifestly inadequate.

Background

The victim, who suffers from ‘significant sub-average general intellectual functioning and significant deficits in adaptive behaviour’,[1] is the respondent’s natural daughter. The respondent only met the victim when she was 18, approximately a year before the offending occurred.
[1]DPP v [CJA] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, 30 April 2012, Judge Allen) (‘Reasons’) [3].

In late 2010, the respondent was contacted by the victim, who was having difficulties with her mother and wanted to leave home. The respondent collected the victim from her mother’s house and she went to live with him in New South Wales. Later the respondent returned to Victoria with the victim, where she lived with him for short periods in his elderly parents’ home and with an aunt. Over a six week period, the respondent engaged in various acts of digital, lingual and penile/vaginal penetration with the victim. The Crown did not allege that he used force or violence against the victim.

On 5 April 2011, the respondent took the victim to the doctor and she discovered that she was five weeks pregnant. After she told her mother that she was pregnant with her father’s child, the matter was reported to police.

On 22 April 2011,…

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 DPP v CJA

Details

AGLC: DPP v CJA [2013] VSCA 18
Case: [2013] VSCA 18
Decision Date: 15 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against a sentence imposed on CJA who was convicted on eight counts of incest with his natural daughter, an intellectually disabled woman. The victim became pregnant and gave birth to a child with medical difficulties. CJA was sentenced to a total effective term of seven years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years. The appeal challenged the adequacy of the sentence imposed, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the trial judge failed to properly consider the gravity of the offences. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, and the impact on the child. The court also evaluated the totality principle, the deterrent effect of the sentence, and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing. The court acknowledged the severity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, and the impact on the child. However, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate, as it took into account the totality principle and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders