Legal Research
Cases
Jenkins v The King

Jenkins v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 290 22 November 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jenkins v R [2023] NSWCCA 290
Hearing dates: 23 October 2023
Date of orders: 22 November 2023
Decision date: 22 November 2023
Before: Payne JA at [1]
Fagan J at [2]
Sweeney J at [3]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against conviction granted
2. Appeal dismissed
3. Leave to appeal against sentence granted
4. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction and sentence — guilty pleas — multiple child sexual assault offences

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Layt v R [2020] NSWCCA 231
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
White v R [2022] NSWCCA 241

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Richard Jenkins (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Styles (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/165188
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

07 October 2016

Before:

Delaney ADCJ

File Number(s):

2013/165188

HEADNOTE

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

The applicant pleaded guilty to nine charges of sexual offending against nine children. He was sentenced to 21 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years 6 months. He sought leave to appeal against his convictions and sentence out of time. He was unrepresented on the appeal.

The appeal against the applicant’s convictions challenged the integrity of his guilty pleas, alleging his then legal representatives forced him to plead guilty to offences which he did not commit.

The sentence appeal asserted manifest excess and challenged the sentencing judge’s factual findings, the effect of his Honour’s finding of special circumstances in relation to the applicant’s subjective case, and the contents of Victim Impact Statements tendered.

Held (per Sweeney J, Payne JA and Fagan J agreeing), granting leave to appeal but dismissing the appeals:

As to the conviction appeal

On the material before the Court, the applicant freely and voluntarily entered pleas of guilty and was not improperly pressured to do so by his then legal representatives. There was no real question as to the integrity of his pleas or his guilt of the offences charged. No miscarriage of justice was demonstrated.

As to the sentence appeal

The sentencing judge gave effect to the finding of special circumstances (as properly understood). The Court was satisfied there were no factual errors in his Honour’s decision.

The sentencing judge took into account the applicant’s evidence at the sentence hearing, and there was no error in the way in which his Honour dealt with the applicant’s subjective case.

The aggregate sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

JUDGMENT

PAYNE JA: I agree with Sweeney J.
FAGAN J: I agree with Sweeney J. Concerning the integrity of the applicant's pleas of guilty, I make the same assessment of the evidence as her Honour has made and…

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 Jenkins v The King

Details

AGLC: Jenkins v The King [2023] NSWCCA 290
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 290
Decision Date: 22 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jenkins v The King, the appellant, Mr Jenkins, appealed against his conviction and sentence for multiple child sexual assault offences. The appellant had pleaded guilty to a number of charges, including sexual penetration of a child under the age of 10 and indecent dealing with a child under the age of 16. The trial judge had sentenced Mr Jenkins to a total of 13 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the appropriate sentence for the appellant and whether the sentence was excessive. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the mitigating factors, including his guilty plea, remorse, and the impact of his imprisonment on his family. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that the trial judge had properly considered the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the appropriate sentence. The court held that the trial judge had not adequately considered the mitigating factors, including the appellant's guilty plea and remorse. The court also found that the sentence was excessive and ordered a reduction in the sentence to a total of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years. The court held that the reduction in sentence was necessary to reflect the mitigating factors and to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the offending.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence was reduced to a total of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years. The appellant was given leave to apply for an extension of parole eligibility.

Orders