CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - CROWN APPEAL - INADEQUACY OF SENTENCE - MULTIPLE SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST STEP-DAUGHTER - OFFENDER'S HEALTH AND EFFECT OF CUSTODY
1. Appeal allowed; 2. Sentences imposed by his Honour Judge Ford on 18 June 1999 in respect of counts 2, 3, and 4 be quashed; 3. In lieu thereof ; (a) on count 3 the respondent is sentenced to 5 years penal servitude consisting of a minimum term of 3 years and 9 months commencing on 21 May 1999 and expiring on 20 February 2003 on which date the respondent will be eligible to parole and an additional term of 1 year and 3 months commencing on 21 February 2003; (b) on counts 2 and 4 the respondent is sentenced to fixed terms of 3 years and 9 months commencing on 21 May 1999 and expiring on 20 February 2003; 4. The sentences imposed by Judge Ford in respect of counts 1, 5 and 7 are confirmed; 5. The sentences imposed or confirmed by this Court are to be served concurrently.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60466/99
SHELLER JA JAMES J DOWD J
REGINA v BJW
The respondent was found guilty of five counts of sexual offences against his step-daughter and one count of assault. The complainant was aged between 9 and 23 years at the time these offences were committed. All charges were denied by the respondent and no sign of contrition was shown.
At trial, there was evidence that the respondent suffered chronic lower back pain, epilepsy and migraine attacks. He required regular medication. There was also medical evidence that long term imprisonment might contribute to depression.
In his remarks on sentence, Ford DCJ gave effect to the medical evidence and “substantially reduce[d] the sentence which would otherwise have been…
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 BJW
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60
Case
[2000] NSWCCA 60
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v BJW involved the appellant, BJW, who appealed against the adequacy of his sentence for multiple sexual offences against his step-daughter. The trial court had sentenced BJW to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, which the Crown considered insufficient given the nature and seriousness of the crimes committed. The matter was brought before the court for review.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence imposed by the trial court was inadequate in light of the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court was also tasked with considering the appellant's health and the potential impact of custody on him. The appellant argued that his health conditions warranted a lesser sentence, while the Crown contended that the offences warranted a more severe punishment.
The court examined the nature of the offences, which included multiple instances of sexual abuse against a vulnerable child. It considered the need for general deterrence and the principle that sentences should reflect the seriousness of the crime. The court also weighed the appellant's health conditions and the potential impact of imprisonment on his well-being. After careful consideration, the court determined that the original sentence was inadequate and increased the non-parole period, finding that the revised sentence was more commensurate with the gravity of the crimes committed.
The court's decision emphasised the need to balance the seriousness of the offences with the individual circumstances of the offender. The final orders included an increase in the non-parole period of BJW's sentence, reflecting the court's view that the original punishment did not adequately address the severity of the crimes and the need for general deterrence.