R v CBJ

The case of R v CBJ involved the offender who pleaded guilty to 42 counts of sexual offences against his step-son and step-daughter. The offender was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in respect of eight of the 10 counts of rape, which occurred on four separate occasions over one month. The offending was captured on a CCTV security system, diminishing the benefit of the offender's early plea of guilty. The offender had relevant prior convictions which were less serious than the subject offending. The offender appealed against his convictions and sought leave to appeal against sentence only in respect of the rape sentences. The offender contended that the 15-year sentences imposed failed to give sufficient allowance for his early plea, the relatively brief duration of the offending and the absence of a maintaining charge. The offender submitted that a sentence of 13 years imprisonment is appropriate.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the sentences imposed in respect of the eight counts of rape were manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the circumstances of the rapes, which were unusually sordid. The court also had to consider the comparable sentences relied on by the respondent, Flynn, Robinson and HAD. The court noted that the circumstances of the offences apart from the two rapes of the offender's 17 or 18-year-old daughter were not known due to the limited extent of the appeal and application for leave to appeal. The court considered the sentencing judge's observation that the offences of rape against the offender's own daughter "were at the highest level of depravity".

The court's reasoning and outcome were that the offender appealed against his convictions and sought leave to appeal against sentence only in respect of the rape sentences. The court was unsuccessful. The court noted that the circumstances of the rapes were unusually sordid. The court considered the comparable sentences relied on by the respondent, Flynn, Robinson and HAD. The court noted that the circumstances of the offences apart from the two rapes of the offender's 17 or 18-year-old daughter were not known due to the limited extent of the appeal and application for leave to appeal. The court considered the sentencing judge's observation that the offences of rape against the offender's own daughter "were at the highest level of depravity". The court concluded that the sentences imposed in respect of the eight counts of rape were not manifestly excessive.

The final orders were that the application for leave to appeal be granted, but only to the extent that the sentences of 15 years imprisonment imposed in respect of counts 20, 22, 24, 29, 36, 37, 39 and 45 be set aside and sentences of 13 years imprisonment be substituted therefor.