R v Clarke

Case [2020] NSWDC 692

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Clarke [2020] NSWDC 692
Hearing dates: 01 October 2020
Date of orders: 19 October 2020
Decision date: 19 October 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 12 years with a non-parole period of 8 years

Catchwords:

CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child <10

CRIME — Sexual offences — Indecent assault

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness

SENTENCING — Retrial after successful appeal — Effect of earlier sentence

SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Expert reports

SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Reasons for sentence

SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender

SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Sentencing Act 1989

Cases Cited:

Davies v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 45

Imbornonev R [2017] NSWCCA 144

Markarian vThe Queen [2005] HCA 25

Muldrockv The Queen [2011] HCA 39

RvQutami [2001] NSWCCA 353

ShannonvR [2006] NSWCCA 39

Tepania v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 247

TO v R [2017] NSWCCA 12

Texts Cited:

Australian Women's Weekly Wednesday 24 September 1969

Category:Sentence
Parties:

Regina (Crown)

Darrell Charles Clarke (Offender)
Representation:

Donna Daleo (Crown Prosecutor)

Taran Ramrakha (counsel for the Offender)

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Pope & Spinks (Offender)
File Number(s): 2017/00121873 & 2016/00321508
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication order for the identity of the complainants and a further order made in Court that there is to be no publication of the names of the complainants or of any information which may enable their identities to be ascertained

REVISED JUDGEMENT

Introduction

  1. On Monday 27 July 2020, Darrell Charles Clarke appeared for trial in the District Court, Sydney presented upon an indictment alleging four offences. Three of these were charged in the following terms:

Counts 1 and 3

Between 1 January 2016 and 26 October 2016 at Leumeah in the State of New South Wales, [he] did have sexual intercourse with a child then under the age of ten years, namely six or seven years, contrary to s 66A(1) Crimes Act 1900.

  1. Count 1 was in respect of a child, TO and count 3 in respect of her sister, SO.

Count 2

Between 1 January 2016 and 26 October 2016 at Leumeah in the State of New South Wales, [he] did assault TO and at the time of that assault committed an act of indecency on TO, a child, then under the age of 16 years, namely six or seven years, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900.

  1. I found the accused guilty of count 3 and therefore no verdict was required for count 4 charged in the alternative to count 3.

  2. To each of the charges upon which he was presented, the accused pleaded not guilty and elected…

Continue reading R v Clarke

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Clarke [2020] NSWDC 692
Case
[2020] NSWDC 692
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Clarke involved the appellant who was convicted of multiple offences, including sexual intercourse with a child and indecent assault. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on the appellant following his conviction and considering whether it was appropriate in the circumstances. The central legal issues revolved around the principles of sentencing, particularly the aggregation of sentences for multiple offences, the objective seriousness of the crimes committed, and the impact of the appellant's age and other subjective considerations on the sentence. The court also had to consider the effect of the earlier sentence in light of the successful appeal and the necessity for expert reports in determining the appropriate penalty.

In addressing these issues, the court examined the principles of sentencing as they applied to the appellant's crimes. The court found that the cumulative effect of the appellant's multiple offences warranted a severe penalty, taking into account the objective seriousness of each crime. The court highlighted that the sexual nature of the offences and their impact on the victim were paramount in determining the sentence. Additionally, the court considered the appellant's age and other mitigating factors, but ultimately concluded that these did not sufficiently outweigh the gravity of the offences committed. The court further noted the importance of expert reports in providing a comprehensive understanding of the appellant's circumstances, which aided in forming a balanced and just sentence.

The court determined that an aggregate sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting the cumulative impact of the appellant's crimes. The High Court set the aggregate sentence at 12 years, with a non-parole period of 8 years, balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and the rehabilitation of the offender. The court provided detailed reasons for the sentence, ensuring that the decision was transparent and justifiable. This comprehensive approach to sentencing aimed to uphold the principles of justice while addressing the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 12 years with a non-parole period of 8 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.