Jones (a pseudonym) v The King - [2025] NSWCCA 29

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones (a pseudonym) v R [2025] NSWCCA 29
Hearing dates: 12 February 2025
Date of orders: 7 March 2025
Decision date: 07 March 2025
Before: Basten AJA at [1];
McNaughton J at [35];
Weinstein J at [36]
Decision:
(1)   Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the sentence imposed in the District Court on 15 December 2023.
(2)   Allow the appeal and quash the sentence.
(3)   Resentence the applicant to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for a non-parole period of 13 years, commencing on 29 June 2023 and expiring on 28 June 2036, with a balance of term of seven years, terminating on 28 June 2043.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal against sentence – child sex offences – finding of special circumstances – grounds were age of offender, first period of imprisonment, mental condition and rehabilitation – adjustment to non-parole period from the statutory ratio refused because no need for extended period of rehabilitation – other grounds remained – error in not adjusting non-parole period – offender resentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66C, 66DB, 66DD
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44

Cases Cited:
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jones (a pseudonym) (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Chhabra & R Thampapillai (Applicant)
F Sullivan (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Hyde Park Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/00256607; 2021/00203711
Publication restriction: Section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) prohibit the publication of any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of each of the victims.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

15 December 2023

Before:

McGrath SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2020/00256607; 2021/00203711

JUDGMENT

BASTEN AJA: The applicant faced a trial in the District Court in 2023 on eight charges of child sexual offences involving two victims aged between 11 and 12 years. One was the offender’s foster daughter. (There being a statutory non-publication order relating to the names and identity of the victims, the name of the applicant has been anonymised.) The applicant was convicted and sentenced by the trial judge, McGrath SC DCJ, who imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 20 years with a non-parole period of 15 years. The sentence commenced on 29 June 2023; the non-parole period therefore expires on 28 June 2038.
The sole proposed ground of appeal is that the sentencing judge made a finding of special circumstances for the purposes of s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (Sentencing Procedure Act), but did not adjust the length of the non-parole period from the statutory ratio. For reasons explained below, the applicant’s submission that the judge erred in failing 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 Jones (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Jones (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] NSWCCA 29
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 29
Decision Date: 07 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against sentence in this matter involved an individual, referred to as Jones, who was convicted of child sex offences. The Crown sought to appeal the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Jones, the appellant, contested the Crown's appeal and sought to maintain the original sentence imposed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate given the nature and circumstances of the offences committed. A secondary issue was whether the trial judge erred in not adjusting the non-parole period in light of the special circumstances identified by the parties. The court had to determine whether the special circumstances warranted a reduction in the non-parole period, and if so, what the appropriate length of that period should be.

In determining the appeal, the court held that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court identified several special circumstances, including the age of the offender at the time of the offence, the offender's first period of imprisonment, the mental condition of the offender, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the trial judge had erred in not adjusting the non-parole period to reflect these special circumstances. However, the court also found that there was no need for an extended period of rehabilitation, and therefore, the non-parole period was appropriately reduced but not to the extent initially suggested by the trial judge. The court resentenced Jones, taking into account the special circumstances and ensuring that the sentence remained within the parameters of what was considered just and appropriate for the offences committed.

The court's final orders included the resentencing of Jones to a term of imprisonment with a specified non-parole period, reflecting the special circumstances identified and the need to balance the interests of justice with the requirements of public safety and deterrence.

Orders