Counsel: Ms Kayt Hogan (Crown) Mr Mark Dennis SC (Offender) Solicitors: Ms Abreha Kidane (Crown) Mr Lucas Velvic (Crown) Mr Jeff Chan (Offender) Mr Daniel Petrushnko (Offender)
File Number(s):
2021/00053729
Publication restriction:
Non-publication order re identity of victim and any matter which may lead directly or indirectly to the identification of the victim, including the names of relatives. Suppression order in respect of name of victim whose name will be anonymised.
JUDGMENT
CHARGES FOR SENTENCE
Dongyong Bao was born in November 1973 and is presently 50 years of age. He appears today to be sentenced in relation to four counts of sexually touch another person without consent in breach of s 61KC(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence provision carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. It does not carry a standard non-parole period.
Maximum penalties are guideposts for sentencing judges, representing the seriousness in which the community, through Parliament, views offending of this type.
DATE OF OFFENDING
The offending took place on 24 February 2021. The offender was subsequently arrested on 25 February 2021. He was granted bail on 26 February 2021, and has spent a total of 2 days in custody referable to these offences. On 12 September 2022 in the District Court at Sydney, the…
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 Bao
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Bao [2024] NSWDC 200
Case
[2024] NSWDC 200
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Bao, the defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting a victim who was under his care as a masseuse. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant, Bao, was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault against the victim, who was particularly vulnerable due to her occupation and the power dynamic inherent in the client-practitioner relationship. This case underscores the breach of trust and the abuse of that trust for personal gratification.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentence for Bao's crimes. Given the aggravating factors, such as the vulnerability of the victim and the breach of trust, the court had to balance these with any mitigating factors presented by the defence. The court also considered the impact of the crime on the victim and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.
The court determined that an Intensive Correction Order was the most appropriate sentence. It found that this order would adequately address the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation without the need for imprisonment. The court imposed a three-year order with specific conditions, including mandatory counselling and participation in a sexual offender program. The reasoning behind this decision was to ensure Bao understands the gravity of his actions, to provide support for his rehabilitation, and to protect the community from potential future offences.
Orders
Orders of the court
Intensive Correction Order – 3 years with conditions