R v BL

Case [2025] NSWDC 315 8 August 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v BL [2025] NSWDC 315
Hearing dates: 4 June 2025
Date of orders: 8 August 2025
Decision date: 08 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:
71 I make the following orders:
(1) The offender is convicted of the offences.
(2) The indicative sentences are set out above.
(3) The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years commencing 2 June 2025 and expiring 1 June 2031.
(4) I impose non-parole period of 3 years 8 months to expire 1 February 2029. The earliest date the offender is eligible for release is 1 February 2029.

Catchwords:
CRIME — SENTENCING — sentence following guilty verdict — child sex offences — sexual intercourse with child <10 — attempt sexual intercourse with child < 10 — indecent assault child < 16 — intentionally sexually touch child < 10 years
SENTENCING — subjective considerations on sentence — special circumstances — mental health — onerous bail conditions

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66(1), 66C(2)
Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A, 54A

Cases Cited:
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex, BL
Representation:
Counsel:
R Suters (Offender)
K MacKenzie (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid (Offender)
Solicitor for Public Prosecution (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/00190171
Publication restriction:
Pursuant to Section 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 there is to be no publication of names, information, material or evidence that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of any child or witness involved in these proceedings.
A non-publication order is in place in relation to the defendant’s name.

JUDGMENT

The offender is to be sentenced with respect four child sex offences following a trial and guilty verdicts. The offences were committed against his nephew EL when he was aged between 6 and 11 years of age. The offender was found not guilty on a separate offence.
The trial indictment verdicts of guilty were for the following offences:

Count 1 – Indecent assault person under 16 years of age (DV) contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 8 years.

Count 2 – Intentionally sexually touch child under 10 years (DV) contrary to s 66DA(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 16 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 8 years.

Count 3 – Sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 years (DV) contrary to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. This offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years.

Count 4 – Attempt to have sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years (DV) contrary to s 66B of the Crimes Act 1900. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment with a standard…

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 BL

Details

AGLC: R v BL [2025] NSWDC 315
Case: [2025] NSWDC 315
Decision Date: 08 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v BL came before the court following a conviction on charges related to child sex offences. The offender, BL, was found guilty of engaging in sexual intercourse with a child. The case was heard in a higher court, where the sentencing of BL was to be determined. The court needed to consider various legal issues pertinent to sentencing, particularly given the gravity of the crimes and the special circumstances surrounding the offender.

The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account the severity of the offences and the impact on the victim. Additionally, the court had to weigh subjective considerations such as the offender's mental health and the onerous conditions of bail. The legal principles guiding the court's decision included the need to ensure justice for the victim, deterrence, and the rehabilitation of the offender. The court had to balance these factors to arrive at a sentence that was both fair and effective.

In its judgment, the court emphasised the heinous nature of the crimes and the profound impact on the victim. It acknowledged the offender's mental health issues but concluded that they did not significantly mitigate the severity of the offences. The court set an indicative sentence and imposed an aggregate term of imprisonment of six years, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months. This sentence aimed to provide adequate punishment, deterrence, and an opportunity for the offender to reflect on and potentially rehabilitate from their actions. The court's decision reflected a comprehensive consideration of the legal and factual circumstances, ensuring a balanced and just outcome.

The final orders included a conviction on the offences, the setting of an indicative sentence, and the imposition of a specific term of imprisonment. The non-parole period was also clearly defined, ensuring the offender's eligibility for release was transparent. This detailed sentencing order aimed to provide clarity and finality to the case, ensuring all legal requirements were met.

Orders

Orders of the court

71 I make the following orders:

(1) The offender is convicted of the offences.

(2) The indicative sentences are set out above.

(3) The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years commencing 2 June 2025 and expiring 1 June 2031.

(4) I impose non-parole period of 3 years 8 months to expire 1 February 2029. The earliest date the offender is eligible for release is 1 February 2029.

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.

Actions

Citations

R v BL [2025] NSWDC 315

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

RA v The King [2024] NSWCCA 149
Citation 1 (Para 63)

…In RA v R [2024] NSWCCA 149, the Court noted that "the severity of the sentence increases at a rate that is not linear in comparison with the increase in length. That is, actual imprisonment for a lengthy period is more than twice as severe as imprisonment for half the time".…
R v Zarad Brown [2023] NSWDC 477
Citation 2 (Para 61)

…ul life after release: R v MAK; R v MSK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381 at [15] - [17] per Spigelman CJ, Whealy J and Howie JJ); R v Brown [2023] NSWDC 477 at [90]).…
R v Quinlan [2021] NSWCCA 284
Citation 3 (Para 69)

…ot ordinarily constitute custody of a kind relevant to the imposition of a sentence: LA v R [2021] NSWCCA 136. However as was observed in R v Quinlin [2021] NSWCCA 284, mental health issues in combination with a lengthy period on conditional liberty may increase the burden of restrictive bail conditions.…
Hesketh v R [2021] NSWCCA 262
Citation 4 (Para 62)

…ce, particularly where the involved similar criminal conduct, that there is not double punishment. As Bell P (as he then was) observed in Hesketh v R [2021] NSWCCA 262 at [54] where there is underlying factual commonality across the offences for which the offender is to be sentenced it is important not to impose pun…
Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 220
Citation 5 (Para 61)

…ce, it is necessary to ensure that the overall sentence is just and appropriate in that it reflects the totality of the offending behaviour: Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 220 at [53] - [63] (per RA Hulme J with whom Leeming JA and Campbell J agreed). The Court must be mindful of the "crushing" effect of a long total senten…
La v R [2021] NSWCCA 136
Citation 6 (Para 69)

…involving some restriction on a person's liberty, would not ordinarily constitute custody of a kind relevant to the imposition of a sentence: LA v R [2021] NSWCCA 136. However as was observed in R v Quinlin [2021] NSWCCA 284, mental health issues in combination with a lengthy period on conditional liberty may incre…
EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21
Citation 7 (Para 51)

…terrence and denunciation have a significant role to play with respect to sexual abuse perpetrated on children. As Hoeben CJ at CL observed in EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21 at [42] (with whom Harrison J and RA Hulme J agreed):…
R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56
Citation 8 (Para 52)

…The courts have consistently recognised the harm inflicted on children that are victims of sexual abuse. In R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469; [2014] NSWCCA 56 the Court observed at [110]:…
R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5
Citation 9 (Para 92)

…“… that child sex offences have profound and deleterious effects upon victims for many years, if not the whole of their lives: R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5 at [92]. Sexual abuse of children will inevitably give rise to psychological damage: SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255 at [52]. In R v G [2008] UKHL 37; [2009] 1 AC 92, Baro…
SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255
Citation 10 (Para 52)

…not the whole of their lives: R v CMB [2014] NSWCCA 5 at [92]. Sexual abuse of children will inevitably give rise to psychological damage: SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255 at [52]. In R v G [2008] UKHL 37; [2009] 1 AC 92, Baroness Hale of Richmond (at [49]) referred to the "long term and serious harm, both physical and psyc…
RS v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 227
Citation 11 (Para 33)

…ted a pattern of repeated offending that was contrary to a claim of leniency due to good character that would otherwise have been available: RS v R [2013] NSWCCA 227. Counsel for the offender properly conceded that the weight to be afforded to his prior good character (count 1) and lack of criminal record would be d…
Clarkson v The Queen [2011] VSCA 157
Citation 12

…th a child is intended to protect children from the physical and psychological harm taken to be caused by premature sexual activity: Clarkson v R [2011] VSCA 157; 32 VR 361 at 364 [3], 368-372 [26]-[39].”…
Alseedi v R [2009] NSWCCA 185
Citation 13 (Para 49)

…o address underlying issues leading to the offending, that does not equate to poor prospects of rehabilitation. As Giles JA observed in Alseedi v R [2009] NSWCCA 185, there can be rehabilitation without confession and offenders found guilty after trial are not all but automatically deprived of a finding of good pros…
R v G [2008] UKHL 37
Citation 14 (Para 52)

…B [2014] NSWCCA 5 at [92]. Sexual abuse of children will inevitably give rise to psychological damage: SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255 at [52]. In R v G [2008] UKHL 37; [2009] 1 AC 92, Baroness Hale of Richmond (at [49]) referred to the "long term and serious harm, both physical and psychological, which premature sexual…
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381
Citation 15 (Para 61)

…ential of inducing a feeling of hopelessness and destroying any expectation of a useful life after release: R v MAK; R v MSK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381 at [15] - [17] per Spigelman CJ, Whealy J and Howie JJ); R v Brown [2023] NSWDC 477 at [90]).…
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21
Citation 16 (Para 33)

…offending was not an isolated act and was engaged in for the purposes of sexual gratification: R v Hermann (1988) 37 A Crim R 440; Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 at [174] - [178].…
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54
Citation 17

…Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66(1), 66C(2) Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A, 54A Cases Cited: R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359 Category: Sentence Parties: Rex, BL Representation: Counsel: R Suters (Offender) K MacKenzie (Crown) Solicitors: Legal Aid (Offender) Solicitor…
[2009] 1 AC 92 [2009] 1 AC 92
Citation 18 (Para 52)

…5 at [92]. Sexual abuse of children will inevitably give rise to psychological damage: SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255 at [52]. In R v G [2008] UKHL 37; [2009] 1 AC 92, Baroness Hale of Richmond (at [49]) referred to the "long term and serious harm, both physical and psychological, which premature sexual activity can do…

Legislation Cited

Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) 21A, 54A
3 mentions (from Para 3)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 66(1), 66C(2)
3 mentions (from Para 1)
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v BL [2025] NSWDC 315
Hearing dates:	4 June 2025
Date of orders:	8 August 2025
Decision date:	08 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:	71 I make the following orders: (1) The offender is convicted of the offences. (2) The indicative sentences are set out above. (3) The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years commencing 2 June 2025 and expiring 1 June 2031. (4) I impose non-parole period of 3 years 8 months to expire 1 February 2029. The earliest date the offender is eligible for release is 1 February 2029.
Catchwords:	CRIME — SENTENCING — sentence following guilty verdict — child sex offences — sexual intercourse with child <10 — attempt sexual intercourse with child < 10 — indecent assault child < 16 — intentionally sexually touch child < 10 years SENTENCING — subjective considerations on sentence — special circumstances — mental health — onerous bail conditions
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66(1), 66C(2) Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A, 54A
Cases Cited:	R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex, BL
Representation:	Counsel: R Suters (Offender) K MacKenzie (Crown) Solicitors: Legal Aid (Offender) Solicitor for Public Prosecution (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/00190171
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to Section 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 there is to be no publication of names, information, material or evidence that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of any child or witness involved in these proceedings. A non-publication order is in place in relation to the defendant’s name.