Aggregate sentence of 11 years with a non-parole period of 8 years 3 months
Catchwords:
CRIME – Indecent assault person under 16 years of age (DV) - Sexual intercourse with child under the age of 10 years (DV) - Intentionally carry out sexual act with child under 10yrs (DV)
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – multiple child victims – father offends against daughter and stepdaughters - victim impact when child too young to understand what had occurred - pleas of guilty - disclosure of unknown guilt – significant reduction in sentence - moral culpability - no special circumstance finding
[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 R v Alfred (a pseudonym)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Alfred (a pseudonym) [2022] NSWDC 494
Case
[2022] NSWDC 494
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The defendant, Alfred, faced the Supreme Court in relation to charges of indecent assault and sexual intercourse with children under the age of 16 years, and specifically with children under 10 years of age. Alfred had been convicted of offences against his daughter and his stepdaughters, and the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence. Alfred entered guilty pleas to all charges, and the court had to consider various factors in determining the appropriate sentence, including the nature of the offences, the number of victims, and the impact on the victims. The court also had to assess the moral culpability of Alfred, the fact that he had disclosed his guilt, and whether any special circumstances existed that could impact the sentencing.
The court found that the offences were of a serious nature, involving multiple victims who were young children, and that the impact on the victims, although not fully understood by them due to their young age, was significant. The court acknowledged the pleas of guilty and the fact that Alfred had disclosed his guilt, which resulted in a significant reduction in sentence. The court considered that while the moral culpability was high, there were no special circumstances that warranted further reduction or aggravation of the sentence. The court was also mindful of the potential for reoffending and the need for deterrence.
In conclusion, the court determined that an aggregate sentence of 11 years was appropriate, with a non-parole period of 8 years and 3 months. The court took into account the seriousness of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the various factors that were relevant to the sentencing decision. The court considered that this sentence would provide adequate punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation for Alfred, while also ensuring the safety of the community. The court ordered that Alfred serve an aggregate sentence of 11 years with a non-parole period of 8 years and 3 months.
Orders
Orders of the court
Aggregate sentence of 11 years with a non-parole period of 8 years 3 months