R v B, RP

The appeal concerned the sentencing of the appellant, R, who had been convicted of offences relating to the sexual abuse of two children, referred to as Child A and Child B. The appeal was heard by Bampton and Parker JJ and David AJ. The core of the dispute revolved around the appellant's argument that the sentencing judge had erred in imposing cumulative sentences for the offences against the two children, rather than concurrent sentences.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had properly exercised her discretion in ordering the sentences for the offences against Child A and Child B to be served cumulatively, and whether the overall sentence imposed was excessive, particularly in light of the totality principle. The appellant contended that the offending against Child B was less serious and should have been treated differently in sentencing.

The court considered the differences in the offending against each child, acknowledging that while both sets of conduct were serious, a comparison of their gravity was difficult. The court found that the sentencing judge's starting point of 12 years for each set of offences was not inappropriate. The court noted that the offences against Child B, which occurred over a period of approximately seven years from when she was about five years old until she was 12, involved a progression of sexual abuse, including digital penetration. The court concluded that the sentencing judge did not err in making the sentences cumulative, as these were separate offences against two distinct victims, each groomed and abused while the appellant was in a position of trust. The court found no basis for concurrency.

The appeal was dismissed. The court affirmed that the sentencing judge had properly applied the totality principle to reduce the notional cumulative head sentence, thereby addressing any concern that the period of imprisonment might be crushing.