Patrick Dexter (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen - [2022] VSCA 74

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0168

PATRICK DEXTER (a pseudonym)[1]	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification of the victims of sexual offending, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of pseudonyms in place of the names of the applicant and the victims.

---

JUDGES:	KYROU JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 April 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 74
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2021] VCC 907 (Judge Gucciardo)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Eight charges of sexual penetration with child under 16, one charge of persistent sexual abuse of child under 16 – Five victims – Total effective sentence 9 years, 6 months’ imprisonment, non-parole period 6 years, 3 months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Application for extension of time – Extension of time granted – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
No appearances

KYROU JA:

Introduction and summary

On 10 May 2021, the applicant pleaded guilty to the charges set out in the table below and, on 5 July 2021, he was sentenced by a County Court judge as set out in that table:[2]
[2]DPP v Dexter (a pseudonym) [2021] VCC 907 (‘Sentencing remarks’). The applicant pleaded not guilty to charge 1 on the indictment. That charge was subsequently severed from the indictment.

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

2 Sexual penetration with a child under 16 [Crimes Act 1958 s 45] 10 years 3 years 3 months

3 Sexual penetration with a child under 16 10 years 3 years 3 months

4 Sexual penetration with a child under 16 10 years 3 years 3 months

5 Sexual penetration with a child under 16 10 years 3 years 3 months

6 Sexual penetration with a child under 16 10 years 3 years and 3 months 3 months

7 Sexual penetration with a child under 16 10 years 3 years and 3 months 3 months

8 Sexual penetration with a child under 16 10 years 3 years 3 months

9 Sexual penetration with a child under 16 10 years 3 years 3 months

10 Persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16 [Crimes Act s 47A] 25 years 7 years and 6 months Base

Total effective sentence: 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment

Non-parole period: 6 years and 3 months

Section 6AAA statement: 12 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months

Other relevant orders: Sentenced as a serious sexual offender for charges 4–10; sex offender registration for life

Charge	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
2	Sexual penetration with a child under 16 [Crimes Act 1958 s 45]	10 years	3 years	3 months
3	Sexual penetration with a child under 16	10 years	3 years	3 months
4	Sexual penetration with a child under 16	10 years	3 years	3 months
5	Sexual penetration with a child under 16	10 years	3 years	3 months
6	Sexual penetration with a child under 16	10 years	3 years and 3 months	3 months
7	Sexual penetration with a child under 16	10 years	3 years and 3 months	3 months
8	Sexual penetration with a child under 16	10 years	3 years	3 months
9	Sexual penetration with a child under 16	10 years	3 years	3 months
10	Persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16 [Crimes Act s 47A]	25 years	7 years and 6 months	Base
Total effective sentence: 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
Non-parole period: 6 years and 3 months
Section 6AAA statement: 12 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months
Other relevant orders: Sentenced as a serious sexual offender for charges 4–10; sex offender registration for life

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the following proposed ground:

In all the circumstances, the sentence imposed on the base sentence (charge 10 — persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16) was:
a)manifestly excessive, and
b)… productive of a total effective sentence and non-parole period that is manifestly excessive.

The applicant also seeks an extension of time within which to file his…

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 Patrick Dexter (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Patrick Dexter (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen [2022] VSCA 74
Case: [2022] VSCA 74
Decision Date: 22 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by Patrick Dexter, who had been convicted and sentenced for multiple charges of sexual penetration and persistent sexual abuse of children under the age of 16. The victims numbered five in total, and the sentence imposed by the lower court was nine years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years and three months. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Dexter was manifestly excessive. Additionally, Dexter had applied for an extension of time to lodge his appeal, which also needed to be addressed.

The court examined the nature and extent of Dexter's crimes, considering the vulnerability of the victims and the impact on them. It assessed the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the offences, the number of victims, and the need for deterrence and retribution. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the crimes but found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account all relevant factors. Regarding the application for an extension of time, the court found sufficient grounds to grant the extension, allowing Dexter to proceed with his appeal. However, the court ultimately denied leave to appeal, finding that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

The court's reasoning led to the conclusion that the sentence imposed on Dexter was proportionate to the crimes committed. The extension of time was granted to ensure that Dexter's right to appeal was not unjustly hindered. The final orders of the court were to deny leave to appeal and to grant the extension of time for the lodging of the appeal.

Orders