R v Dagwell

The respondent appealed against the sentence imposed by the primary judge, claiming it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary judge had sentenced the respondent to a total of 21 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine months. The Crown argued the sentence was manifestly inadequate and the respondent was resentenced to a total of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years. The respondent argued the sentence was manifestly excessive and he was resentenced to a total of 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years. The court was required to decide whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the Crown's proposed sentence or the respondent's proposed sentence was more appropriate.

The court found that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate as it did not reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed by the respondent. The court noted that the crimes involved sexual offences against a vulnerable 13-year-old girl and that the respondent had preyed on her innocence. The court also noted that the respondent had continued to engage in sexual conduct with the complainant despite her protests. The court found that the Crown's proposed sentence was more appropriate as it reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The court also noted that the respondent had a history of similar offending and that a significant sentence was necessary to deter him from reoffending.

The court ordered that the respondent be resentenced to a total of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years. The court also ordered that the respondent be placed on the sex offenders register for a period of 15 years. The respondent was given credit for time served in custody.