Lombard (a pseudonym) v The King - [2025] VSCA 51

HaSUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0200

MARCUS LOMBARD (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

[1]A pseudonym has been used in place of the name of the applicant in order to protect the identity of the victim of sexual offending.

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 April 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 51
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 1499 (Judge Leighfield)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Sexual assault of a child under 16 (3 charges), Sexual penetration of a child under 12 (1 charge) – TES of 7 years 9 months, with NPP of 4 years 6 months – Applicant aged 84 years at sentencing – Sentence imposed following a trial – Manifest excess – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Not reasonably arguable that sentence manifestly excessive – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr PJ Smallwood
Respondent:		Mr L McAuliffe
Solicitors
Applicant:	Tony Hargreaves & Partners
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA:

On 20 May 2024, following a nine day trial in the County Court, the applicant was convicted of three charges of sexual assault of a child under the age of 16 (charges 1, 2 and 3)[2] and one charge of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 12 (charge 4).[3]
[2]Contrary to s 49D(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2016.
[3]Contrary to s 49A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2016.
On 30 September 2024, following a plea hearing on 30 August 2024, the applicant was sentenced as follows:[4]
[4]DPP v [Lombard (a pseudonym)] [2024] VCC 1499 (‘Reasons’).

Charge	Offence	Standard Sentence	Maximum Sentence	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Sexual assault of a child under the age of 16	4 years	10 years	2 years	3 months
2	Sexual assault of a child under the age of 16	4 years	10 years	3 years	6 months
3	Sexual assault of a child under the age of 16	4 years	10 years	2 years and 3 months	3 months
4	Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 12	10 years	25 years	6 years and 9 months	Base
Total Effective Sentence:			7 years 9 months
Non-Parole Period:			4 years 6 months
Pre-sentence detention:			31 days
Other relevant Orders:			Sentenced as a serious sexual offender on charges 3 and 4

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence on the following proposed ground of appeal:
1.The sentence imposed on charge 4 (6 years 9 months), the total effective sentence (7 years 9 months) and the non-parole period fixed (4 years 6 months) were each manifestly excessive.

Circumstances of the offending

The applicant’s offending occurred on 16 May 2020. At the time of the offending, he was 80 years of age, and the…

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 Lombard (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Lombard (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] VSCA 51
Case: [2025] VSCA 51
Decision Date: 1 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lombard (a pseudonym) v The King involved an 84-year-old applicant who was convicted of three charges of sexual assault of a child under 16 and one charge of sexual penetration of a child under 12. The applicant was sentenced to a total effective sentence (TES) of 7 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period (NPP) of 4 years and 6 months. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it was reasonably arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive and whether there was a reasonable arguable case that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court examined the principles of sentencing and the factors that should be considered when determining the appropriate sentence for such offences. The court also considered the applicant's age and the impact of the sentence on him.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and it was not reasonably arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the primary judge had considered all relevant factors and had exercised his discretion in a manner consistent with the principles of sentencing. The court also noted that the applicant's age was a mitigating factor, but it did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Orders