Legal Research
Cases
R v Baker

R v Baker

Case [2020] NSWDC 615 7 September 2020

Criminal Liability

Aggravated Sexual Assault

Abuse of Position of Trust

Multiple Victims

Sentencing

Victim Impact Statement

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Baker [2020] NSWDC 615
Hearing dates: 31 July 2020
Date of orders: 07 September 2020
Decision date: 07 September 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 18 years with a non-parole period of 12 years

Catchwords:
CRIME — Child sex offences — Procuring or grooming child for unlawful sexual activity
CRIME — Sexual offences — Act of indecency
CRIME — Sexual offences — Aggravated sexual assault — Victim
CRIME — Sexual offences — Aggravated sexual assault — Victim under authority
CRIME — Sexual offences — Indecent assault — Circumstances of aggravation
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Abuse of position of trust or authority in relation to the victim
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Multiple victims
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Presence of child
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Substantial harm, injury, loss or damage — Victim impact statement
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — General principles
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Maximum penalty
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Parole period
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Expert reports
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Reasons for sentence
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Protective custody
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Mental Health Act 2007

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Imbornone v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 144
Lam v R [2015] NSWCCA 143
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) HCA 39
Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
Munroe v R [2006] NSWCCA 350
Pfitzner v R [2010) NSWCCA 314
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79
R vMcGourty [2002] NSWCCA 335
R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Van Zwam v R [2017] NSWCCA 127
Veen v The Queen (No 2) 1988 HCA 14

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Craig Myles Baker (Offender)
Representation:
Susan Oliver (Crown Prosecutor)
Alan Conwell (counsel) (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Younes+Espiner Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s):

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 R v Baker

Details

AGLC: R v Baker [2020] NSWDC 615
Case: [2020] NSWDC 615
Decision Date: 07 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth versus Baker, the defendant was convicted of multiple child sex offences, including procuring or grooming a child for unlawful sexual activity, acts of indecency, and aggravated sexual assault. The case was heard and determined by the relevant Australian court. The central legal issues involved the application of aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing, particularly in light of the defendant's abuse of a position of trust and authority, the presence of multiple victims, the defendant's prior criminal record, and the extent of harm caused to the victims.

The court meticulously examined various aggravating factors, including the defendant's abuse of a position of trust, the presence of multiple victims, and the substantial harm inflicted upon the victims. The court also considered the objective seriousness of the offences and the maximum penalties applicable. Mitigating factors, such as the defendant's early guilty plea, were also taken into account. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court followed general sentencing principles and considered the need to protect the community and deter similar offences.

The court concluded that the cumulative impact of the aggravating factors warranted a severe sentence. After considering all relevant factors, including the agreed facts and expert reports, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 18 years, with a non-parole period of 12 years. This decision reflects the court's intent to address the gravity of the offences and the need to safeguard society from the defendant's future actions. The court provided detailed reasons for the sentence, ensuring that all legal considerations were adequately addressed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 18 years with a non-parole period of 12 years

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Baker [2020] NSWDC 615

Most Recent Citation

R v Smith [2025] NSWDC 374

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

R v Smith
[2025] NSWDC 374 Para 98

…R v Baker [2020] NSWDC 615 involved a difficult sentencing exercise before Judge Bennett SC in the District Court. The offender had been a registered psychologist practicing in Coffs Harbour from January 2015 to May 2017. A number of child complainants brought allegations regarding sexual acts committed upon them b…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

Tepania v The Queen
[2018] NSWCCA 247 Para 193

…This statement must be read in light of the guidance that has been provided by Johnson J in Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247.…
Imbornone v R
[2017] NSWCCA 144 Para 209

…More recently the Court of Criminal Appeal in this State considered this point in Imbornone v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 144. Wilson J, with whom Hoeben CJ at CL and R A Hulme J agreed, wrote the following at para 57:…
Van Zwam v R
[2017] NSWCCA 127 Para 5

…dence in an affidavit form from an offender which is admitted into evidence without objection may be accepted by a sentencing judge (see Van Zwam v R [2017] NSWCCA 127) generally the circumstances in which regard should be had to such untested evidence is limited. Affidavits relied upon in the absence of oral eviden…
Lam v R
[2015] NSWCCA 143

…Queen [2017] NSWCCA 144 Lam v R [2015] NSWCCA 143 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) HCA 39 Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 Munroe v R [2006] NSWCCA 350 Pfitzner v R [2010) NSWCCA 314 R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 6…
Munda v Western Australia
[2013] HCA 38 Para 200

…His Honour went on to further discuss Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 and Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38, and spoke to the impact upon an offender of the environment in which the offender might have evolved particularly through formative years. Although within the context of indigenous o…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 201

…His Honour quoted from Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 the judgement from the plurality where the following appears at para 44:…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 188

…rimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 , in their present form, after amendment by Parliament following the decision of the High Court of Australia in Muldrock v The Queen (2011) HCA 39. Section 54A(1) provides that the standard non-parole period for an offence is that which is included in the table to the provisions. I have a…
Butters v R
[2010] NSWCCA 1 Para 3

…o be given to such statements to have regard to the fact that an offender did not give evidence and was not subject to cross-examination: Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1. It is one matter for an offender to express remorse to a psychologist or other third party quite another to give sworn evidence and be cross-examine…
R v Robert Borkowski
[2009] NSWCCA 102 Para 47

…applied. Those to which the legislation did not apply and where common law principles are engaged, such as expressed in the decision in R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 , could attract a discount of 5% for utility. However, I have taken the view, as I announced to the Crown a moment ago, that for consistency I would…
Munro v R
[2006] NSWCCA 350 Para 4

…gned to minimise his or her criminality, or otherwise mitigate penalty, then it should be done directly and in a form which can be tested: Munroe v R [2006] NSWCCA 350.…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25 Para 194

…ers bearing upon the question of the appropriate sentence, in the process of intuitive synthesis discussed, for example, by McHugh J in Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25.…
R v Elfar
[2003] NSWCCA 358 Para 2

…eated with considerable circumspection. Such evidence is untested, and may be deserving of little or no weight: R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381; R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358; R v McGourty [2002] NSWCCA 335.…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW)
[2002] NSWCCA 518 Para 39

…atters has been the subject of appellate authority in Attorney General’s Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518.…
R v Palu
[2002] NSWCCA 381 Para 2

…o the Court, should all be treated with considerable circumspection. Such evidence is untested, and may be deserving of little or no weight: R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381; R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358; R v McGourty [2002] NSWCCA 335.…
R v McGourty
[2002] NSWCCA 335 Para 2

…ection. Such evidence is untested, and may be deserving of little or no weight: R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381; R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358; R v McGourty [2002] NSWCCA 335.…
R v Qutami
[2001] NSWCCA 353 Para 208

…In R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 Smart AJ said at para 58:…
R v Harrison
[2001] NSWCCA 79 Para 5

…tangible expression of contrition, ‘to treat this evidence with anything but scepticism represents a triumph of hope over experience: R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79.”…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Crimes (Sentence Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 46)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 6)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 6)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Baker [2020] NSWDC 615
Hearing dates:	31 July 2020
Date of orders:	07 September 2020
Decision date:	07 September 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 18 years with a non-parole period of 12 years
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Procuring or grooming child for unlawful sexual activity CRIME — Sexual offences — Act of indecency CRIME — Sexual offences — Aggravated sexual assault — Victim CRIME — Sexual offences — Aggravated sexual assault — Victim under authority CRIME — Sexual offences — Indecent assault — Circumstances of aggravation SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Abuse of position of trust or authority in relation to the victim SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Multiple victims SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Presence of child SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Substantial harm, injury, loss or damage — Victim impact statement SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — General principles SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Maximum penalty SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Parole period SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Expert reports SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Reasons for sentence SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Protective custody SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Mental Health Act 2007
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 Imbornone v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 144 Lam v R [2015] NSWCCA 143 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) HCA 39 Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 Munroe v R [2006] NSWCCA 350 Pfitzner v R [2010) NSWCCA 314 R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79 R vMcGourty [2002] NSWCCA 335 R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 Van Zwam v R [2017] NSWCCA 127 Veen v The Queen (No 2) 1988 HCA 14
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Craig Myles Baker (Offender)
Representation:	Susan Oliver (Crown Prosecutor) Alan Conwell (counsel) (Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Younes+Espiner Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):