R v Coleman - [2019] NSWDC 285

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Coleman [2019] NSWDC 285
Hearing dates: 21 January 2019
Date of orders: 21 January 2019
Decision date: 21 January 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:
At [54]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – sexual intercourse without consent – historical matter – verdict of judge alone trial
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Conte v R [2018] NSWCCA 209
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
R v Gebrail (unrep, 18/11/94, NSWCCA)
R v Hartikainen (unrep, 8/6/93, NSWCCA)
R v May [1999] NSWCCA 40
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v PGM (2008) 187 A Crim R 152
R v Pham [2005] NSWCCA 94
R v Russell (unrep, 21/6/96, NSWCCA)
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ronald Coleman (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr K Averre (Crown)
Mr D Pullinger (Offender)
Solicitors:
ODPP (Crown)
Criminal Law Centre (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/374893
Publication restriction: Non-Publication Order with regards to the name of the victim

Introduction

The Offender appears before the Court today for sentencing after being found guilty of the offence contained on the Indictment.
In sentencing the Court of course has regard to the guideposts of maximum penalties and any applicable stated non-parole period if one such exists. The maximum penalty is Parliament’s assessment of the offending.
The offence for which the Offender is to be sentenced is charge H63319476 sequence 1, being that between 1 February 1996 and 31 March 1996, at Bondi Junction in the State of New South Wales, the Offender did have sexual intercourse with the complainant (‘AC’), without the consent of AC and knowing that he was not consenting, in breach of s61I of the Crimes Act.
The matter proceeded before me without a jury for reasons previously given, resulting in a judgment being delivered on Monday 4 June 2018 resulting in a finding of guilt against the Offender in respect of the subject offence. I note the maximum period of imprisonment applicable is 14 years and there is no standard non-parole period which applies.
The Offender was born on 15 September 1964 and is now 54 years of age. The offending was committed between February and March 1996 when he was 31 years of age.
He was arrested and charged on 14 December 2016. On 11 July 2017 he was committed for trial to the District Court. The Offender was found guilty on 4 June 2018 as previously mentioned. He has been in custody in relation to this offence since 4 June 2018 and the sentence needs to be backdated to account for that period but also a further period in which he was incarcerated initially upon his arrest and on two other occasions following bail breaches.
The evidence on sentence comprised:

the Crown Bundle (Exhibit A) which included a Victim Impact Statement, a Sentencing Assessment Ropert together with custodial history, New South Wales criminal antecedents, West Australian…

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 Coleman

Details

AGLC: R v Coleman [2019] NSWDC 285
Case: [2019] NSWDC 285
Decision Date: 21 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Coleman arose in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The accused, Coleman, was found guilty of sexual intercourse without consent in a historical matter. The case was heard by a judge alone, without a jury, due to the nature of the allegations. The crux of the dispute was the sentencing of the accused, given the historical context of the offence and the absence of a victim's testimony.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Coleman, considering the time elapsed since the offence occurred and the nature of the crime. The court had to balance the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation while taking into account the historical context and the absence of a victim's input.

The court carefully considered the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the moral culpability of the offender. The judge acknowledged the gravity of the offence and the impact such crimes have on victims. Ultimately, the court found that an appropriate sentence would serve the interests of justice and provide a measure of deterrence. The judge imposed a sentence at [54], reflecting the seriousness of the crime while also considering the historical nature of the case and the absence of a victim's testimony.

Orders

Orders of the court

At [54]

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 Coleman [2019] NSWDC 285
Hearing dates:	21 January 2019
Date of orders:	21 January 2019
Decision date:	21 January 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:	At [54]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – sexual intercourse without consent – historical matter – verdict of judge alone trial
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Conte v R [2018] NSWCCA 209 Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447 R v Gebrail (unrep, 18/11/94, NSWCCA) R v Hartikainen (unrep, 8/6/93, NSWCCA) R v May [1999] NSWCCA 40 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 R v PGM (2008) 187 A Crim R 152 R v Pham [2005] NSWCCA 94 R v Russell (unrep, 21/6/96, NSWCCA)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Ronald Coleman (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr K Averre (Crown) Mr D Pullinger (Offender) Solicitors: ODPP (Crown) Criminal Law Centre (Offender)
File Number(s):	2016/374893
Publication restriction:	Non-Publication Order with regards to the name of the victim