Legal Research
Cases
Long (a pseudonym) v The King

Long (a pseudonym) v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 15 20 February 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0116

PAUL LONG (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

[1]To avoid the possibility of identifying the victim of a sexual offence, this judgment adopts a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant, as well as other related individuals.

---

JUDGE:	ORR JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 February 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 15
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 311 (Judge D Sexton)

---

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal – Sentence – Incest – Applicant was victim’s grandfather – Applicant 74 years old at time of offending and 76 at time of sentence – Offending led to terminated pregnancy – Applicant had previously offended against victim when she was a child – Applicant showed no remorse – Whether sentence ‘crushing’ due to applicant’s advanced age and ill health – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Sentence justified in circumstances – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

DPP v G [2002] VSCA 6; DPP v Talbot(a pseudonym) [2024] VSCA 321; Mohamed v The Queen [2022] VSCA 136; R v AMP [2010] VSCA 48; R v AP [2009] VSCA 249; R v Belbruno (2000) 117 A Crim R 150; R v RLP (2009) 213 A Crim R 461.

---

Counsel for written submissions
Applicant:		Ms T Skvortsova
Respondent:		Ms DI Piekusis KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Martin Middleton Oates Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ORR JA:

The applicant seeks leave to appeal his sentence for two charges of sexual penetration of his lineal descendant.[2] The offending occurred in 2022, when the applicant was 74 years of age. The applicant sexually penetrated his biological granddaughter, Michelle Robinson,[3] in the months prior to and following Michelle’s 19^th birthday.[4]
[2]Contrary to s 50C(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.
[3]A pseudonym.
[4]The sentencing reasons incorrectly record that Michelle was 19 years old throughout the period of offending.
The applicant pleaded guilty to the two charges, one of which was a rolled-up charge. On 21 February 2024, he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 7 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 7 months. This comprised a sentence of 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment on charge 1 and 4 years’ imprisonment on charge 2, with 15 months of the sentence on charge 2 ordered to be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on charge 1. The maximum penalty for each offence is 25 years’ imprisonment.
The application for leave to appeal was filed about three and a half months out of time.[5] The applicant therefore seeks an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal his sentence. There are two proposed grounds of appeal.…

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 Long (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Long (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] VSCA 15
Case: [2025] VSCA 15
Decision Date: 20 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Long (a pseudonym) v The King involved an application for leave to appeal a sentence imposed on the applicant, who was convicted of incest. The applicant, at 74 years of age at the time of offending and 76 at the time of sentencing, was the victim's grandfather. His offending led to the victim terminating her pregnancy. The applicant had previously offended against the victim when she was a child and showed no remorse for his actions. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was excessively harsh due to the applicant's advanced age and ill health, and whether it was manifestly excessive given the circumstances.

The court considered the principle that the severity of a sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's culpability. It was acknowledged that the applicant's age and health were mitigating factors, but the court found that these did not outweigh the gravity of the crimes committed. The court also noted that the applicant had demonstrated a pattern of offending against the victim over a prolonged period. The court concluded that the sentence was justified in the circumstances and was not manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The court's reasoning was based on the need to balance the severity of the crimes with the mitigating factors of the applicant's age and health. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community and deter similar conduct in the future. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering both the nature of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence. The final order of the court was that leave to appeal was refused.

Orders