R v CVP

The appellant, CVP, was convicted of multiple offences of sexual penetration and indecent assault against his two daughters, which occurred over a number of years, starting when the youngest daughter was under 10 years of age. The offences came to light when the complainants made disclosures to police in 1993, though the appellant was not charged until 2001. He subsequently pleaded guilty to a total of 22 offences, and was sentenced to an effective total sentence of 11 years and 10 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years and 9 months. The appellant appealed against the severity of the sentence. The court was required to consider the seriousness of the offences, the delay between the offences and the charges, and the appellant's guilty pleas.

The court held that, while the offences were of an extremely serious nature, the delay between the offences and the charges was relevant in assessing the appropriate sentence. The appellant had pleaded guilty to all charges, which also warranted some discount to the sentence. The court noted that the original sentence was at the higher end of the spectrum of sentences for such offences, and was manifestly excessive in the circumstances. The appellant was re-sentenced to a total effective sentence of 10 years, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months. The court considered this to be a just and appropriate sentence, taking into account all relevant factors.

The appellant's appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the re-sentence of 10 years with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for serious sexual offences against children are proportionate and take into account all relevant factors, including the delay between the offences and the charges, and the offender's guilty pleas. The appropriate sentence must also be just and appropriate in all the circumstances, and not manifestly excessive. In this case, the original sentence was held to be manifestly excessive, and the re-sentence was considered to be a more just and appropriate outcome.