Harrison CJ at CL at [1] Button J at [5] Dhanji J at [6]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence - By Crown against inadequacy – child sex offence – using a carriage service to “groom” a person under 16 years of age – whether wrong sentence was imposed – where s 20(1)(b)(iii) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) is invoked – meaning of “exceptional circumstances” – in what circumstances does the “exceptional circumstances” test apply – whether sentencing judge erred in finding there were exceptional circumstances – whether the respondent voluntarily withdrew from the offending – whether the respondent’s conduct amounted to cooperation such that a five percent discount was warranted –respondent is of prior good character – respondent maintained a plea of not guilty and failed to show contrition or remorse – suspended sentence remains a sentence of imprisonment – where the Director sought leave to withdraw submission – leave not granted – appeal dismissed
[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 Bredal
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Bredal [2024] NSWCCA 75
Case
[2024] NSWCCA 75
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Bredal, the respondent, Bredal, was found guilty of using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on Bredal, arguing that it was too lenient. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was inadequate, given the nature and severity of the offence. The Crown contended that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence.
The court examined the meaning of "exceptional circumstances" under section 20(1)(b)(iii) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and the circumstances in which this test applies. The trial judge had found that exceptional circumstances existed due to Bredal voluntarily withdrawing from the offending and his conduct amounting to cooperation, warranting a five percent discount. However, the Crown argued that the judge erred in this finding, as Bredal had not shown contrition or remorse and had maintained a plea of not guilty. The court considered whether these factors warranted a reduction in sentence and whether the judge’s decision was reasonable in the context of the overall sentencing principles.
The court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in finding that exceptional circumstances existed, as Bredal's voluntary withdrawal from the offending and his cooperation were significant factors. Despite the Crown's arguments, the court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors, including Bredal's prior good character. The court rejected the Crown's appeal and dismissed the application, upholding the original sentence.