R v Bamforth; R v Bamforth

Case [2024] NSWDC 45


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bamforth; R v Bamforth [2024] NSWDC 45
Hearing dates: 17 February 2023 (J Bamforth Arraigned)
22 February 2023 (P Bamforth Arraigned, P Bamforth examination-in-chief)
9 March 2023 (Sentence Hearing, P Bamforth cross-examination)
19 May 2023 (Sentence Hearing, expert cross-examined)
13 September 2023 (P Bamforth Mention, solicitor withdrew, offender indicated intention to withdraw pleas)
9 November 2023 (P Bamforth Mention, application to withdraw pleas not pressed)
24 November 2023 (P Bamforth Notice of Motion Hearing, seeking suppression and non-publication orders - refused)
28 February 2024 (Remarks)
29 February 2024 (Remarks continued)
Date of orders: 29 February 2024
Decision date: 29 February 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:

P Bamforth: 32-year head sentence, 22-year 4-month non-parole period.

J Bamforth: 30-year head sentence, 19-year 6-month non-parole period.

Catchwords:

CRIME – Sentencing – Child sexual abuse by married couple – Parity – Totality – Child abuse material –

Kidnap in company.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999

Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

Cases Cited:

Adam Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76

Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132

Benn v R [2023] NSWCCA 24

Burr v R [2020] NSWCCA 282

Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1

Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176

Corby v R [2010] NSWCCA 146

Dawson v R [2021] NSWCCA 53

Dickson v R (2017) 94 NSWLR 476

DPP (NSW) v Burton [2020] NSWCCA 54

EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21

Einfeld v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 87

Georgopolous v R [2010] NSWCCA 246

Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1

Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462

Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 220

Huynh v The Queen [2013] HCA 6

Johnson v The Queen [2004] 78 ALJR 616

Jonson v R (2016) 263 A Crim R 268

KR v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 32

Lloyd v R [2017] NSWCCA 303

Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606

MarkarianvThe Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357

Maxwell v R [2020] NSWCCA 94

McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108

Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380

Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120

Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295

RvABS [2005] NSWCCA 255

RvBJW [2000] NSWCCA 60

R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5

R v El-Hayek [2004] NSWCCA 25

R v Fisher (unrep, 29/3/89, NSWCCA)

R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56

R v Goundar [2001] NSWCCA 198

R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49

R v KNL [2005] NSWCCA 260

R v Lau [2022] NSWCCA 131

R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381

RvMJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368

R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272

R v Oliver, Hartley and Baldwin [2003] 1 Cr App R 28

R v PGM (2008) 187…

Continue reading R v Bamforth; R v Bamforth

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bamforth; R v Bamforth [2024] NSWDC 45
Case
[2024] NSWDC 45
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bamforth involved a married couple, P and J Bamforth, who were jointly convicted of multiple offences related to the sexual abuse of children, including the production of child abuse material and kidnapping. The matter was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia. The appeal by the respondents was against their sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were the appropriate principles to apply in sentencing the Bamforths, particularly in ensuring parity between the sentences and in applying the principle of totality. The court also had to consider the gravity of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence. The appeal challenged both the quantum and the non-parole periods of the sentences, arguing they were excessive.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on the need for parity between co-offenders and the application of the totality principle. The High Court found that while the sentences were severe, they were not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crimes, which involved the sexual abuse of children over an extended period, and the necessity for sentences that reflect the gravity of such offences. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences for such serious crimes adequately reflect their severity and the need for deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

P Bamforth: 32-year head sentence, 22-year 4-month non-parole period.

J Bamforth: 30-year head sentence, 19-year 6-month non-parole period.

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.