R v Cannon - [2020] NSWDC 901

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cannon [2020] NSWDC 901
Hearing dates: 18, 23 September 2020 & 23 October 2020
Date of orders: 23 November 2020
Decision date: 23 November 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 11 with a non-parole period of 7 years

Catchwords:
CRIME — Child sex offences — Attempted sexual intercourse with child >10 <16
CRIME — Child sex offences — Attempted sexual intercourse with child >16
CRIME — Sexual offences — Act of indecency
CRIME — Sexual offences — Indecent assault
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Expert reports
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Pre-sentence reports
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Reasons for sentence

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes(SentencingProcedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Hoskins v R [2016] NSWCCA 157
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA
R v Wicks [2005] NSWCCA 409
Tepania v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 247

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Matthew David Cannon (Offender)
Representation:
Donna Daleo (Crown Prosecutor)
Chris O’Donnell SC (senior counsel for the Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
The Criminal Law Centre (Offender)

File Number(s): 2018/00376401
Publication restriction: No publication of the name of the victim nor of any information which may enable their identity to be ascertained

REVISED JudgEment

INTRODUCTION

Matthew David Cannon appeared for trial in the District Court of New South Wales Sydney charged with 16 offences of sexual assault arising from 14 allegations of misconduct said to have occurred on six occasions between 1 January 2017 and 23 January 2018.
On 18 June 2020, after the accused was arraigned and after the determination of preliminary questions, the accused was re-arraigned and the jury selected and the trial commenced. There were, in fact, two trials commenced with a second jury required because of a disruption to the first trial.

THE OFFENCES

The offences charged in counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 are:

“Between 1 January 2017 and 30 June 2017, at Galston in the State of New South Wales, [the offender] did assault EW, a person then under the age of 16 years, namely 13, and at the time of such assault did commit an act of indecency on the said EW”.

The offence is contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900.
Counts 5 and 6 alleged an offence in each case also contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900. The particulars of these offences are:

“Between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2017, at Glenorie, in the State of New South Wales, [the offender] did assault EW, a person then under the age of 16 years, namely 13 or 14 years of age, and at the time of such assault did commit an act of indecency on the said EW”.

Count 7 was charged contrary to s 66C(3) Crimes Act 1900. It…

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 Cannon

Details

AGLC: R v Cannon [2020] NSWDC 901
Case: [2020] NSWDC 901
Decision Date: 23 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cannon involved a defendant who faced multiple charges related to child sex offences. The charges included attempted sexual intercourse with a child over the age of 10, attempted sexual intercourse with a child over the age of 16, an act of indecency, and indecent assault. The proceedings took place in the relevant Australian court, which is responsible for handling serious criminal matters. The court was tasked with determining the defendant's guilt on these charges and, if found guilty, to impose an appropriate sentence.

The court had to address several legal issues, including the interpretation and application of the relevant statutes governing child sex offences and acts of indecency. It also needed to consider the credibility of the evidence, particularly that of the child witnesses, and the appropriate weight to be given to expert and pre-sentence reports. Additionally, the court had to decide on the appropriate sentence to be imposed, taking into account the defendant's criminal history and the principles of sentencing.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously evaluated the evidence presented, focusing on the testimonies of the child witnesses and the corroborative evidence. It gave careful consideration to the expert reports and pre-sentence reports, which provided insights into the defendant's psychological state and the potential for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the gravity of the offences and the need to protect society, while also considering the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court found the defendant guilty on all charges and imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 11 years with a non-parole period of 7 years.

The court's final orders reflected its comprehensive assessment of the case, ensuring that the sentence imposed was both proportionate to the offences committed and aligned with the principles of justice and deterrence. The aggregate sentence of 11 years with a non-parole period of 7 years aimed to address the serious nature of the offences while also providing an opportunity for the defendant to work towards rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 11 with a non-parole period of 7 years

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Cannon [2020] NSWDC 901
Hearing dates:	18, 23 September 2020 & 23 October 2020
Date of orders:	23 November 2020
Decision date:	23 November 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 11 with a non-parole period of 7 years
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Attempted sexual intercourse with child >10 <16 CRIME — Child sex offences — Attempted sexual intercourse with child >16 CRIME — Sexual offences — Act of indecency CRIME — Sexual offences — Indecent assault CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Expert reports SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Pre-sentence reports SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Reasons for sentence
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 2013 Crimes Act 1900 Crimes(SentencingProcedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Hoskins v R [2016] NSWCCA 157 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA R v Wicks [2005] NSWCCA 409 Tepania v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 247
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Matthew David Cannon (Offender)
Representation:	Donna Daleo (Crown Prosecutor) Chris O’Donnell SC (senior counsel for the Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) The Criminal Law Centre (Offender)
File Number(s):	2018/00376401
Publication restriction:	No publication of the name of the victim nor of any information which may enable their identity to be ascertained