R v Agan

Case [2020] NSWDC 85


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Agan [2020] NSWDC 85
Hearing dates: 13 February 2020
Date of orders: 13 February 2020
Decision date: 13 February 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:

An aggregate term of imprisonment of six years, with a non-parole period of three years, 8 months: at [25].

Catchwords: CRIME — Sexual offences — Aggravated sexual assault — Victim has cognitive impairment
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Substantial harm, injury, loss or damage — Victim impact statement
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Not part of a planned or organised criminal activity — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Not part of a planned or organised criminal activity
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence — Deterrence — Multiple offences — Parole period — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Hardship — Drug addiction — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Thomas [2007] NSWCCA 269
Panchal v R; R v Panchal [2014] NSWCCA 275
Tindall v R [2019] NSWCCA 136
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Sentence
Parties:

Regina (Crown)

  Soloman Agan (Offender)
Representation:

Mr Keay (Crown Prosecutor)

  Mr Winch (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s): 2018/98525
Publication restriction: STATUTORY NON PUBLICATION APPLIESSection 578A Crimes Act 1900 (any matter that may identify the complainant(s))

Judgment

  1. Soloman Agan was born in December 1988 during a protracted civil war in his homeland of Sudan. His parents were both killed in that war. He had 11 or 12 siblings with only two of them surviving the war. He had no formal schooling. He was conscripted into the South Sudanese army as a child solider when he was seven years of age and he remained in the army until his early teens. He suffered a bullet wound while fighting as a child. He spent six months in a Kenyan hospital, eventually walking with crutches. He was then taken to an Ethiopian refugee camp where he lived from a2000 to 2006. He came to Australia as a United Nations refugee in 2007. He has no relatives in Australia. He has studied English and his command of English has improved over the years with support from the government and immigration authorities.

  2. It is against this tragic background, as described by Mr Winch, that Agan stands for sentence today for three offences of aggravated sexual assault, the circumstance of aggravation being that the victim had a cognitive impairment contrary to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of ten years. These penalties are indications of the serious nature of these offences.

  3. I must take into account all the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which include denunciation, punishment, making him accountable for his actions, but also promoting his rehabilitation.

Continue reading R v Agan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Agan [2020] NSWDC 85
Case
[2020] NSWDC 85
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Agan involved the defendant who was charged with aggravated sexual assault against a victim who had a cognitive impairment. The case was heard in a higher court, where sentencing was the primary focus. The defendant had pleaded guilty to the charges and the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court examined various legal issues, including the substantial harm caused to the victim, the impact of the crime on the victim as expressed in a victim impact statement, and the objective seriousness of the offence. Additionally, the court considered mitigating factors such as the defendant not being part of a planned or organised criminal activity, the plea of guilty, potential for rehabilitation, and the defendant's personal circumstances, including drug addiction. The court also weighed the purposes of sentencing, including deterrence, the multiple nature of the offences, and the appropriate parole period.

In reaching its decision, the court determined that the objective seriousness of the offence warranted a significant custodial sentence, but also took into account the mitigating factors presented. The court ultimately concluded that an aggregate term of imprisonment of six years was appropriate, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months. This decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation.

The court made an order for an aggregate term of imprisonment of six years, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months. This sentence reflects the court's consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the overarching objectives of sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate term of imprisonment of six years, with a non-parole period of three years, 8 months: at [25].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.